EM M
IBGHTRONIX
MAIN HARD DISK
powee activity
PLUS-BUS
POWER ACtlVllY
PtAY RECORD
TCD/IP Network-Managed
Video System Controller
• Drag and Drop Event Scheduling
• Digital Video Messaging with Transitions
• Digital Video Program Guide Display
• Web-Based Program Guide Display
• Web-Based System Control
TCD
TOO R/P Digital
Video Recorder/Player
• All-Digital MPEG-2 Playback and Recording
• T60GB Hard Drive— 70 Hours Storage at 5Mb/s
• Simultaneous Playback and Recording
• Track Recording and Playback by Name
• Track Trim and Copy
i n f o @ I ei g htron ix.com
www.leightronix.com
(800) 243-5589
Affordable Versatile Reliable
LEIGHTRONIX, INC.
Cable/Broadcast Automation
CONTROL PRODUCTS
Communication
For Your Community
inscriber
. , ■
NEW YD
i
HEADLINES
Ehrlleh Tried to
".. Broadcast Firm
A federal reyuJn
agency chaster
Ehrlich Last yc-.i
RK ■
Diiay EH
m
Aid
m
*i
C'.y Co
1 £ Tims Evehi U. C sHw, _ / |
R I 4:00 mnricvg
oaJmiM Rink
B :park i
H : 5:15 J^rofWo
B : 2:M WK*r!Qd
K : J.M Plelaitftg
■f Kftsheiw
: 6:15 Toronto
Gpjfeiiiatftin* fi
FkJrf Howe
Cymriaiium |
RbMHwjm I
U !"-Xl •■
Inscriber InfoCaster
Educational Institutes. Community Groups. Government Organizations.
Reaching your audience has never been easier, thanks to Inscriber* 1
Infocaster™. Whether for community television broadcasting, digital
signage or in-house information channels, InfoCaster provides a cost-
effective solution for achieving your presentation ideas. Powerful and
extremely easy-to-use, InfoCaster is designed to quickly create attrac-
tive, professional multi-zone layouts for immediate broadcast or
digital display. Integrate crawls, rolls, animations, clocks, video and
audio clips for dynamic presentations. Incorporate InfoCaster Net-
work Manager to simultaneously manage multiple InfoCaster
systems and effectively target localized audiences. Whatever your
presentation goals, choose InfoCaster to make them a reality.
0mw. infocaster. tv
North & South American Safes— if. Peppiet Si feet. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2J 3C4 Toll-free: +1 .BOO .363.3400 Tel: +1.519.570.91 1 1 FaK: 4 I . 5 1 9 , 570.9 1 40 European Sales— Zijrfs.tra.at 72, 1-131 EE Aalsmeer, The Netherlands
Tel: +3 1. 297. 380930 Fax: +31.297.380939 Asia-Pacific Sales— level AIG Building 1-1 -J Marunouthi, thiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005, Japan Tel: +S1 3 538.8.5237 Fa*: +S1 .48.838.6484 ^Inscriber (S a registered U3demo<k and IrtfcOrter it a
trademark pf InscriOei Technology Corporation. Other product name; mentioned nay be registered trademark? i>< tflKtMDWltS Of their respective companies. Specifications subject to change without notice.
Get the "network look"
on a community television budget
iigli School Fund Raiser Comwoolty Note
Bake Sale this Sunday ♦> No recycling
Come one come all! *.*r pickup Monday
> Easy-to-use creation tools
Multiple independent zones
> Superior broadcast quality
» Live or MPEG-2 video
•* Remote data entry via the web
Automatic website generation
► Intuitive scheduling and logging
- Wire feed data services
Affordable, single PC solution
Contact us to arrange a demonstration,
1-866-270-4641 , www, matrox.com/video
(Digital Video Solutions ' "
SPRING 2004
VOLUME 27, NUMBER 1
CMR EDITORIAL BOARD
Dirk Koning, Chair
Grand Rapids Community Media Cesteb
Bob Devine, Aktiocu College; Lauten-Gle
Davitian, CCTV ; Betty Franci s, Mon-took
lege; Jeffrey Hansel), Maldkn Access Ttr.evis
JohnW. Higgins, Mknlo College
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF THIS ISSUE
Greg F.pler Wood / Lauren-Glenn Daviti;
MANAGING EDITOR
Tim Goodwin
NATIONAL OFFICE
Bunnie Riedel, Executive Director
Felicia Brown, Membership/Operations
Margaret Wanca-Daniels, Ad venisiug Sale:
ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Paul fierg, Thomas Bishop, Alan RusJiong,
Frank Clark, Richard Desinrone, Steve Fortriede,
Alison Fussell, DeeDee Halleck, Jennifer Harris,
James Honvood, Sharon King, fan Levine,
Jim Lundberg, Melissa Mills, Ruth Mills,
Robert NeaJ, Steve Ranieri, Nancy Richard, .
Nantz Rickard, Debra Rogers, Jackie Ste 1
Alliance
for
Community
Media
Community Media Review {ISSN H;74-
9()04| is published quarterly by the Affiance for
Community Media, Inc. Subscriptions $35 a
year. Please send subscriptions, memberships,
address changes, advertising and editorial
inquiries to the Alliance for Community Media,
666 Ilth St. NW, Suite 740, Washington, DC
20001-4542. Telephone 202.393.2650 voice,
202.393.2653 fax. Email; acm@affiancecm.OTfi T
visit the Alliance for Community Media website
at www.alliancecm.org
Requests for bulk orders considered in
advance of publication. Contact the national
office for rates and delivery.
Copyright ©2004 by the Alliance for Cor
munity Media, Inc. Prior written permission
the Alliance for Community Media required for
all reprints or usage.
of
Produced through lite studios of
media
Upfront • pages 3-8
Bunnie Riedel, Board of Directors
Challenging the Threats • pages 9-47
The Problem Articulated
Challenging the Threats, Greg Epler Wood, with Lauren-Glenn Davitian, 9
Challenges to Community Media, Greg Epler Wood, 11
The Foundations of Strength
A Legal History of Public Access Television, Neil J. Lehto, 13
On the Frontlines
Death by a Thousand Cuts, Margie Nicholson, 1 7
Threats Seen: Alliance State Public Policy Coordinators Respond, 19
The PBSing of Access TV, Dirk Koning, 20
MetaThreats: The Bi g Picture
The Policy of Convergence: Threat or Opportunity
for Local Government?, LibbyBeaty, 21
Acme Cable Destruction, Inc., Dirk Koning, 22
Stay Tuned: Fulfilling Cable's Promise
in the Franchise Renewal Process, Jeffrey Chester, 23
Legal, Regulatory and Legislative Threats
to PEG Access, James N. Honvood, 25
The WTO Threatens Local Franchises and
National Media Reform? Believe It!, Lauren-Glenn Davitian, 27
Protect and Defend
Property Rights, Federalism and the
Public Rights-of-Way, Nicholas R Miller and Holly L. Saurer, 29
The Positive Side of PEG Access Under
Municipal Cable Ownership, Bill Nay, 30
PEG Access and Municipal Officials, Randy VanDalsen, 31
Additional Facts about Municipal Cable Systems, Neil J. Lehto, 31
Progress or Dystopia for Community Media?, Interviews, 33
Leading in a Crisis*. A Case Study of Chicago's
CAN TV and RCN, Margie Nicholson, 38
How to Quantify Your Value to the Community, Sam Behrend, 40
It's the Freedom to Communicate, Ruth Mills, 41
A PEG Access Advocate's Toolkit, Tom Bishop, 43
The Threat of Silence: Advocacy as Prevention, Heidi Grace, 45
Eye on the Prize: Securing Media Democracy to Build
Communities Worth Living In, Lauren-Glenn Davitian, 47
If it's cutting edge technology, medical breakthroughs,
or advanced aeronautical research-
NASA 's Destination Tomorrow"" will bring it to you first.
Turn up to four camcorders into a portable studio!
J J
* 5% discount for
ACM Members!
includes power supply, digital switcher, audio mixer,
mini-DV recorder or hard drive, camera cables, intercom
and 7-panel display. Measures 21" x 17" x 18" and
weighs 40 pounds.
Details? Go to www.sacramento.org
SdCMM81T0
916.456.8600
Why pay more?
NASA's Destination Tomorrow™
presents 30-minute educational programs that focus on
NASA research, including new technologies, advanced
aerodynamics, past achievements, and medical,
breakthroughs. Each exciting program gives the audience an
inside look at. NASA and demonstrates how research and
/lives.
■HHB emmy»-award winner
Your station can receive this
programming FREEJust
register online at
destination.larc.nasa.gov
or call 757-864-6100.
For information about NASA 's
Destination Tomorrow™ or other
programming produced by
NASA's Center for Distance
Learning, visit
dkenter.Iarc.nasa.gov.
Programs are developed in cooperation with Christopher Newport University. Program
captioning is funded by a grant from NEC Foundation of America. Broadcast and
off-air rights are unlimited and are granted in perpetuity.
v, CITY OF - 5r l R-» <?.
V SPRINGFIELD .
^tmd. Zoning Board Siy"" '=
§ , Meeting Ttinight .
I/V, Stay tuned for a live mMtmMMjf
in\ broadcast of this month's \l. 9g|w
zoning board poky meeting. .. ~¥wjrw!-\
'field Library will hold its annual blood drive this Saturday from nc
Friday, June 7 1:12 pm
?tli. Springfield High School will host an am
-™ T """
Turn it on.
And they'll tune you in.
Symon Communications' TargetVision product suite is the ultimate way to keep your community
connected, with easy-to-use, cost effective tools to broadcast graphical messaging, video, and real-
time information feeds. For more than 20 years, Symon's innovative displays, software, and services
have helped communicators reach audiences in the millions.
TargetVision's remote access makes it. possible to put a virtual "broadcast studio" on the desk of
practically anyone with a computer and internet connection, giving key community offices the
ability to communicate in new ways via television. Schools, government offices, and other public
services can broadcast news, events, video, and crisis communications in a more timely way than
ever before possible. Call Symon today, and see how easy it is to connect with your community.
Symon
800 724 4044
www.symon.com
2004 ALLIANCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Frank Clark Chair
City Hall
801 Plum St., Room 2B
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Voice: 513.352.5307 / Fax: 513.352.5347
Email: frank.clark@rcc.org
Tom Bishop Vice Chair, Central States Chair
Media Bridges Cincinnati
1100 Race St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Voice: 513.651.4171 / Fax: 513.651.1 106
Email: tom@mediabridges.org
Nancy Richard Treasurer
Plymouth Area Community Access Television
130 Court Street Rear
Plymouth, MA 02360
Voice: 508.830.6999 / Fax 508.830.9666
Email: nrichard@pactv.org
Ruth Mills Secretary/Fundraising Chair
Whitewater Community Television
c/o Indiana University East
2325 Chester Blvd.
Richmond, IN 47374
Voice: 765.973.8488 / Fax: 765.973.8489
Email: rumills@indiana.edu
Regional Chairs & Representatives
Alison Fussell Southeast Chair
People TV, Inc.
190 14th St. NW
Atlanta, GA 30318-7802
Voice: 404.873.6712 / Fax: 404.874.3239
Email: alisonfLisselI@peopletv.org
Jim Lundberg Midwest Chair
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
4071 Sunset Drive
Spring Park, MN 55384
Voice: 952.471.7125 / Fax: 952.471.9151
Email: jim@imcc-tv.org
Robert Neal Northwest Chair
1108 N. Cedar St.
Tacoma.WA 98406
Voice: 253.756.1667
Email: nealbc@plu.edu
Steve Ranieri Western Representative
International Chair
Quote.. .Unquote, Inc.
POBox 26206
Albuquerque, NM 87125
Voice: 505.243.0027 / Fax 505.346.1635
sranieri@quote-unquote.org
Dehra Rogers Northeast Representative
Conference Planning Chair
Falmouth Community Television
310 Dillingham Ave.
Falmouth, MA 02540
Voice: 508.457.0800 / Fax: 508.457.1604
Email: dcb@fctv.org
Richard Desimone Mid-Atlantic Chair
480 Middlesex Ave.
Metuchen, NJ 08840
Voice: 732.603.9750 / Fax: 732.603.9871
Email: rjdesimone@verizon.net
Sharon King Southwest Chair
Dallas Community Television
1253 Roundtable
Dallas, TX 75247
Voice: 214.631.5571 / Fax: 214.637.5342
Email: dctvceo@earthlink.net
At-Large
Paul Berg
Newton Communications Access Center, Inc.
PO Box 610192
Newton, MA 02461-0192
Voice: 617.965.7200x17/ Fax: 617.965.5677
Email: paulb@nevvtv. org
DeeDee Halleck
Viewing Habits
PO Box 89
Willow, NY 12495-0050
Voice: 212.473.8933
Email: dhalleck@ucsd.edu
Steven Fortriede
Allen County Public Library
200 E. Berry St.
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Voice: 260.421.1205 / Fax: 260.421.1386
Email: sfortriede@acpl.info
Jan Levine
San Francisco Community Television
415 Highland Ct.
Clyde, CA 94520
Voice: 415.575.4942 / Fax: 415.575.4945
Email: jan@accessf.org
Melissa Mills
DATV
280 Leo St.
Dayton, OH 45404
Voice: 937,223.531 1 / Fax: 937.223.2345
Email: melissa@datv.org
Jackie Steven
Arlington Independent Media
2701 C Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22201
Voice: 703.524.2388 / Fax: 703.908.9239
Email: jax@arlingtonmedia.org
Discretionary Appointees
Alan Bushong Board Development
Capital Community Television Personnel
PO Box 2342
Salem, OR 97308-2342
Voice: 503.588.2288 / Fax: 503.588.6424
Email: alan@cctvsalem.org
Jennifer Harris Equal Opportunity Chair
GRTV
711 Bridge St.NW
Voice: 616.732.9030 / Fax: 616.459.3970
Email: jennifcr@grcmc.org
James Horwood Legal Affairs Appointee
Spiegel & McDiarmid
1333 New Hampshire Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Voice: 202.879.4002 / Fax: 202.393.2866
Email: james.horwood@spiegelmcd.com
Nantz Rickard
DCTV
901 Newton St. NE
Washington, DC 20017
Voice: 202.526.7007 / Fax: 202.526.6646
Email: dctv@starpower.net
Additional Contacts (not board members)
Ron Cooper, Western Region Chair
rcooper444@aol.com
Voice: 916.456.8600
Jeff Hansell, Northeast Region Chair
jeffliansell@onebox.com
Voice: 781.321.6400
'Talk Amongst Yourselves...'
Information, resources, networking
and national office announcements
are available day or night. The Alliance
hosts three listservs lo help you:
The Access Fokiim list is open to anyone inter-
ested in community access. To sign-up, inter-
ested persons should send a message to:
access-fomm-subsaibe@lists.alliancecm.org.
The Alliance Announce list is open only to
members of the Alliance for Community
Media. Members should send a request to:
aUiance-announce-subscribe@
lists.alliancecm.org.
To subscribe to the Alliances' Equal Oppoutum-
ty list, send an email to
alliance-eo-subscribe<s>Usts.ailiancecm.org
After subscribing you may write messages to:
aIliance-eo@lisls. alliancecm. org
Useful Contacts
Alliance for Community Mf.dia
666 Uth St. NW, Suite 740
Washington, DC 20001-4542
202.393.2650 voice / 202.393.2653 fax
Email: acm@alliancecm,org
www.alliancecm.org
Federal Communications Commission
The Portals
445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC 20024
202.418.0200 voice / 202.418.2812 fax
www.fcc.gov
Your Federal Legislators
The Honorable
United States Senate, Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20510
or call 202.224.3 121
on the web at http://thomas.loc.gov
mm
FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Brian Anthony Wilson, 1956-2004
BY BUNNIE RIEDEL
he 'greatest resource the
jf Alliance has is its members:
t / people from every walk of life;
every political opinion; every religious
belief; every ethnicity and cultural
background; every economic circum-
stance, sexual orientation and age.
The Alliance is a rich tapestry of peo-
ple reflecting the diversity of our
country and the diversity of the world.
And it is through that diversity that we
are able to find common ground
when we are willing to seek it.
These connections reflect what I
believe is at the core of most of our
members' personalities, a desire to
reach out to each other and live a life
of service to our communities. After
all, we are not in the business of mak-
ing "widgets," we are in the business
of "the public interest."
In 2002, an Alliance member
stepped up to the plate and took on
the daunting task of being a servant-
leader to the organization. Although
he had served on the board before, he
had not done so as "Chair." Maybe the
timing was right in the life of this
organization or maybe the timing was
right in his life. I am talking of course
about Brian Wilson.
Before Brian became chair I did
not know him well. We had met at var-
ious conferences and had a few con-
versations. Brian was on the national
board when I was hired, but soon
after, his board term was up and so we
had not spent much time together.
When he was elected chair I felt a cer-
tain amount of trepidation, I had no
idea what kind of a chair he would be
or what it would be like to work with
him. We both entered this work rela-
tionship slowly, carefully picking our
words and being cautious with each
other.
Brian had an uncanny knack for
really listening, not just to what peo-
ple said, but also to what they meant.
Along the way of his life he had made
a conscious decision not to make
assumptions and not to filter other
people's actions through his own Lens
of experience. He gave everyone,
including me, the benefit of the doubt
and purposely decided that their
motivations were well meaning, even
if then acts were less than generous.
Practically every Alliance for Com-
munity Media Region in the United
States had the fortune of having Brian
in a leadership position in that region
at one time or another. And over the
last few years, he had become quite
\ involved in our sister organization,
the National Association of Telecom-
munications Officers and Advisors
(NATOA). But Brian particularly
excelled at leadership toward the end
of his life. Through much soul search-
ing, a tremendous amount of sheer
will power and a commitment to liv-
ing a "better life," Brian achieved a
depth of spirit that eludes most of us.
He had achieved a real sense of who
he was and what he wanted his role to
be in the world.
Once he became chair of the
Alliance he and I spent many many
hours on the phone talking about the
business of the Alliance and about our
personal stories. 1 learned that like
myself, Brian had been adopted and I
think that little bit of information
brought us closer, I learned that Brian
had been a volunteer firefighter at one
point, something he dearly loved. He
had also been a teacher, a soap opera
writer and he is the deep voiced bass
singer in that classic disco hit "Funky
Town."
At the Midwest conference in St.
Paul in February, Brian stopped by to
show his support , but he wasn't feel-
ing well so he left a little early, Since I
had a plane to catch, he gave me a
ride to the airport as it was on the way
back to his parent's home. We started
joking around and by the time we
reached the airport we were both
practically in tears from laughing. His
sense of humor and his Wry wit were a
subst antial part of his personality.
Along with a personality and a very
interesting personal history, Brian
brought a refreshing leadership style
to the board. His goal was to get us all
working together toward a common
purpose, that being the best interest
of the organization. On several occa-
sions he made us do those stupid
board "exercises," you know the ones I
am talking about, where you partner
up with people and reveal informa-
tion you didn't really want to share. At
one point he forced us ali to go to a
bar and do Karaoke. It was interesting
how these exercises and the big group
"sing" helped us learn how to laugh
with each other; find ways to under-
stand each other better, and build a
sense of trust and community among
the board members and myself.
Brian was very strict about not
allowing anyone to commandeer the
meetings. Fie moved us right along
whether we wanted to move or not.
And if we were just going in circles, he
pointed that out to us in a very direct
way. As time went along, the meetings
grew shorter and we accomplished
twice as much in half the time. His
leadership style was thoughtful,
respectful and welcoming.
Like many Alliance and NATOA
members, I miss Brian and I frequent-
ly think "say it isn't so." I miss his
voice on the phone, his love of fun, his
excellent dancing and his sage advice.
I miss him as a leader and I miss him
as a friend. Sadly Brian's life was too
short. But there is no doubt that in
that short amount of time, he had a
profound impact on many, many peo-
ple.
Bunnie Riedel is executive director of the
Alliance for Community Media. Contact her
at briedel@aUiancecm.org
6«
Brian Anthony Wilson
September 12, 1956
April 10, 2004
On the Cover of CMR
EASY
Make PEG
:ess simi
With Aavelin from MagicBox
. he cover art for ( he spring
?. s issue was created by Jar-
ret Jakubowski in 1973 for the
poster at right. A Vietnam vet-
eran, he and fellow vet Bob
Fitzgerald, and Girbe Eefsting,
a member of the resistance,
were film and video majors at
William James College in Allen-
dale, Michigan. They collabo-
rated on a multi-media docu-
mentary project in Washington,
DC protesting Richard Nixon's
1973 inauguration. Their task
was to cover theYTPPlE counter
inauguration of a pig.
"liberty Video lasted
through our college years and we worked on many projects that
embraced using media for social change," said Refsling, who
works today with the Community Media Center in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. "Our final project was working with the United Farm
Workers in their struggle to be recognized as a labor union."
Jarret graciously altered the artwork by changing the Roman
numerals on the porta-pak from 1973 to 1972, reflecting the land-
mark FCC decision that gave Public access its toehold in the cable
franchise process. For more on that, read Neil Lehto's article on
page 13, and see Nicholas Johnson's comments on page 34.
■ 1
<WTf FF
Our Character Generator meets
all your Community Access
and Photo Advertising needs,
with features like:
Easy Scheduling • Use Any TrueType Font
4 Overlay Crawl Regions
Remote Emergency Management
NOAA Weather and Data Feeds • Video in a Window
Trigger DVD, VHS and MPEG Players
IP Addressable • Display Content on the Web
Look for us in booth #300
at the ACM Show!
r AGICBOXINC , COM
541.752,5654
Call or email for
FREE video.
Aavelin
rmation is the currency of democracy."
ihoi.1i:. ii — h t-.n
WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE
OFFERING FREE SOCIAL ISSUE PROGRAMMING
DAILY TO PEG STATIONS:
• Democracy • International Politics
Now! • Environmentalism
• Arts & Culture • Current Affairs
• Why Vote?
Election 2004
Special Reports
Contact Than Reeder atthan@freespeech.org or 303-442-8445 xl02
FSTV NOW BROADCASTS PART-TIME ON OVER 100 COMMUNITY ACCESS STATIONS, IN
CITIES SUCH AS Oakland, CA. Santa Cruz, CA • Denver, CO ■ Tampa Bay. "L ■ Honolulu,
HA • Boise, ID • Iowa City, (A • Fort Wayne, IN » Baltimore, MD • Grand Rapids, Ml • St.
Paul, MN • St. Louis, MO • Chapel Hill, NC • Albuquerque, NM • Cleveland, OH • Pitts-
burgh, PA • Austin, TX • Seattle, WA • Madison, Wl
AND MANY MORE. SEE OUR WEBSITE FOR A COMPLETE LISTING.
1-888-550-FSTV • PO Box 6060; Boulder, CO 80306 • www.fteespeech.org
Jeemg images of Iraqis being humiliated and brutal-
ized at the hands of our own armed forces resonate
in our mind like echoes of the Vietnam era. The My
Lai massacre of innocent Vietnamese civilians, document-
ed on film, was one of the nails in the coffin of yet another
war that few Americans asked to join.
The power of the photographic
image to shift public opinion, move
societies to action or bring collective
sadness, is the same power that we see
played out in thousands of cabled
communities across the United States.
Sure, it is difficult to compare what happens, say, in an
average city council meeting with some of these life-
changing events; however, the measure of the drama is
simply a matter of scale.
Case in point: when hearings on same-sex marriage
were being held in the state of Vermont in 1999, 1 was
executive director of an access organization. I helped in
live coverage of a legislative committee's visit to hear citi-
zen comments. What I witnessed that evening was one of
the most riveting three hours of "television" I had ever
seen. Resident after resident testified with well- chosen
words, heartfelt emotion and profound sincerity. The
impact of the cablecast in Bennington was palpable, and
with the cumulative impact of similar testimonials around
the state, the Vermont legislature eventually legalized civil
unions— opening the door to change across the United
States.
What does this have to do with the theme of this CM/??
Community media in general is seeing threats to their
existence by national and global forces. And at the same
time, there are local threats to PEG access so common and
familiar that we barely recognize them as threats, but
which are to us more urgent and more important to vigor-
ously confront. But as in Vermont's civil unions story, if
you and I work from the local outward, we'll witness the
collective power that will eventually create national and
global change.
As you read this issue of tire CMR, you'll see that many
difficulties community media face are brought on by
external forces. Even a sampling of these can be discour-
aging: global trade agreements, a downsized economy, the
consolidation of mass media ownership, an aggressive
cable industry eager to eliminate PEG access.
You'll also read reports from community media prac-
titioners about local problems that have stifled the
growth of community media, and sometimes delivered it
a fatal blow: loss of community support and influential
allies; financially-strained municipal budgets; lack of
committed leadership during fran-
chise renewal; the emergence of a
powerful anti- public access crusader;
municipal governments that fund gov-
ernment and educational access or
institutional networks while they de-
hmd public access.
But there is hope. Inside you'll find
tools to inoculate your community media center against
the "internal" threats it may face day to day. You'll learn
about global efforts to preserve cultural diversity and free
speech. You'll read how the Alliance can help you educate
your state and federal legislators about the "meta-threats"
dumped on us like fallout from the war being waged
among telecommunication giants — such as the cable
modem issue, or media ownership consolidation.
Most importandy, we remind you why PEG access
exists in the first place, and why it is worth protecting. Our
sttongest defense is not its money. Rather, we draw our
strength from the value of truth, and the ability of individ-
uals, non-profit organizations, local governments and
educational institutions to freely and independently
express views that challenge the status quo, invoke open
and constructive debate, promote civic involvement in our
democratic system, and fight intolerance, hatred and big-
otry. We also draw strength from our colleagues across the
world who are challenging many of the same threats we
face, and are forging a new path by means of strategic
thinking and collective action.
We are living in a time in United States history when
the mass media can no longer be counted on to provide a
free and independent voice in political debate, or to be a
countervailing force against large corporate commercial
interests. Two important independent communication
systems thankfully still exist,— the Internet and PEG
access— and it is vitally important that we all work to
make certain that both continue to thrive, unencumbered
by the threats that would chip away at their foundations,
and with them, our basic democratic freedoms.
- GregEpkr Wood, with Lauren-Glenn Davitian, co-editors.
Challenging
the Threats
Greg EplerWood is an independent consultant in the field of public interest telecommunications policy and implementation,
with a background- of professional media, production, writing and management of academic and PEG access organizations. He
assists nonprofits in their advocacy, capacity-building and visioning, arid is a contract project manager. Epler Wood has been an
Alliance member since 1979, and its public policy committee chair since 2001. He also heads public policy for the Vermont Access
Network, that state's PEG access organization.
Lauren-Glenn Davitian (Davitia.n@cctv.org) is executive director ofCCTV's Center for Media and Democracy based in Burling-
ton, Vermont (www.cctv.org).
1119
Faci'l is software designed just for media access
centers, addressing their wide ranqe of needs
from contact information to equipment inventory,
from equipment and facility reservations to project
budgeting and reporting, from program library
to channel scheduling with broadcast automation
system interfaces to Synergy, Leightronix,
Sundance and others, HighFy automated and fully
integrated, this program makes ail the information
available throughout your organization to every
staff member in real time.
After more than twelve years of development
and incorporating the input of PEG access centers
across the country, Faci'l has evolved into the
most comprehensive and effective solution to the
exceptional data management reguirements of
a media access center. Facil is already serving over
130 organizations from coast to coast, recovering
the staff time previously lost to paperwork and
improving service levels.
Cablecast Scheduling
Facfl
Data management software
developed for the unique needs
of media access centers.
Appointment Book
For more information or questions about Faci'l
call Access Tucson at 520.624,9833.
Visit our website at accesstucson.org/facil
and take the Facil on-line tour. 1^
Challenges to Community Media
by Greg Epler Wood
he past three years the Alliance's Public Policy Com
• • * niiu.ee has been observing an increasing number of
K._S threats and challenges to community media in general,
and PEG access in particular. These have become more serious as
media consolidation and television/Internet digital convergence
has, in turn, emboldened and hardened the cable industry to fight
more competitively to increase its bottom line. The tight has
become more serious as the cable industry attempts to chip away
at some of the most fundamental principles underlying PEG
access: public rights-of-way; franchise fees; protections under the
Eirst and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the
Cable Communications Act itself.
Ever si nee its modest beginnings, public access, and to a lesser
extent its sisters educational and governmental access, has suf-
fered from lack of funding and the difficulty in institutionalizing
itself in the minds and lives of the general public. In spite of the
myriad of challenges resulting from such handicaps, it has not
only survived but has also grown in large part due to an incredible
cadre of bright, determined and deeply principled individuals act-
ing out a basic truth: that a community is strengthened and tied
together by free and open lines of communication.
We may be approaching a tipping point, however. Most of the
traditional and familiar challenges are still with us, but they have
been joined by a whole new set of "meta-threats" — those brought
on by a more monolithic cable industry structure and a more
• complicated set of intertwined technical and regulatory chal-
lenges than we saw 30 years ago. The PEG access pioneers faced
giants and the unknown as they animated this unusual new con-
cept beginning back in the 1970s: Teleprompter, Manhattan Bor-
ough, the Congress, the Supreme Court; the crude Sony PortaPalc,
using video for social change, public meetings truly becoming
public via the "intrusion" of video.
Thirty years later we face giants again, but this time we are
more knowledgeable, sophisticated and have a real thing with a
track record to fight for and to fight with.
Take a look at the list below and see which ones resonate with
you. Read through the rest of the CMR and use the information, as
well as the resources of the Alliance, to strengthen your own com-
munity media operation. Follow those suggestions that make
most sense to you on the local level, but in addition, support the
Alliance and other media democracy organizations as they con-
front the larger national and global meta-threats. More now than
ever, we must all be informed, and we need to engage our friends
and allies. Thus empowered and unified by the principles that are
the fuel of die community media engine, we can re-invent PEG
access to be an even stronger and more vitally integrated force for
social justice and change in our communities.
- Greg Epler Wood is chair of the Alliance's Public Policy Committee
THE TOP 31
CHALLENGES
COMPILED
I. LOSS/LACK OF PEG ACCESS OUTRIGHT
1. By direct action (or inaction) of the
local government ('E' and 'G' to the
exclusion of 'P')
2. Powerful MSOs "cozying up to"
(pressuring) local elected officials
3. Cable companies allowed to drop
PEG access during consolidations/
franchise renewals
4. Allowed to die as a result of
decreased community support/volun-
teerism/poor leadership
5. Difficult to start-up in some large
cities with strong commercial broad-
cast media
II. DECREASE IN REVENUES
6. Tight fiscal times for cash-strapped
local franchising authorities (LFAs)
who cut back PEG
7. Deliberate under-reporting of
gross-annual-revenues (GAR) by
cable companies
8. Cable modem revenue held back
from GAR calculations (see #13)
9. Advertising revenue held back
from GAR
10. Slowdown of build-outs and
expansion of homes-passed
11. Competition from direct broadcast
satellite
III. LOOMING EXTERNAL THREATS (SOME
EXISTENT, SOME EARLY-WARNING
SIGNS OF POSSIBLE TRENDS)
12. Authority of LFAs to regulate public
rights-of-way challenged by cable
companies
13. Cable revenues shifting toward
exempt revenue streams, away from
traditional services
14. PEG (or P) access revenues being
diverted toward costs of supporting
T-Nets
15. Expenses of PEG access (e.g., rents)
must come out of franchise fee
Ifi. PBS affiliates getting involved in the
local franchising process, claiming 'E'
access status
17. Global trade rules challenge fran-
chise agreements as "restraint of trade"
18. "A la carte" channel subscriptions —
PEG access could be portrayed as cost-
ly and separate
IV. CONSTITUTIONAL
19. Cable industry First, Fifth and
possibly Fourteenth Amendment-
based claims.
20. Indecent speech ruled to be
criminal conduct
21. Media ownership consolidation
22. Chilling of diverse speech
V. OUR OWN FOOT, SHOOTING
23. Over-dependency on cable rev-
enues (lack of diverse funding sources)
24. Ineffective or non-existent role in
the franchise renewal process
25. Lack of strict franchise/contract
enforcement
26. Too few community partners/too
little coalition-building at local level
27. Lack of, or ineffective marketing of
PEG access to the community
28. Slow to adopt new technologies
(buggy-whip mentality)
29. Not using PEG access to identify,
then solve, local problems
30. Over-reliance on imported pro-
gramming (the "PBSing" of PEG access)
31. Local special interest groups pres-
suring PEG access management
..just when you thought your community
television access center couldn't afford a
professional Jib or teleprompter...
This is the JonyPrompter. It sells for $1,495 and
comes with a 14-15" color VGA LCD monitor. These
professional units can be setup permanently in your
studio or they easily fold down for transport to location
shooting.
We can also bundle the system with teleprompting
software, a hand controller and a carrying case.
We can also upgrade your system to a composite
monitor with built-in' image flip, (doesn't require
reversing software to reverse the image)
JonyJib
JonyJib
1849 Redhawk Circle
Turlock CA 95392
209-968-9395
www.jonyjib.com
We know! You need to upgrade your studio teleprompters to
LCD or want to treat your center to a professional jib arm?
There's some good gear out there but can your center afford it?
What about the junk? Can you afford to get stuck with it?
You're soon to be like everyone else, who discovers JonyJib.
The best kept secret in broadcast video'. We were just like you.
We wanted great professional gear without the hefty price tags,
So we put our engineering hats on, rolled up our sleeves and
designed some products ourselves. Now your center can
benefit from our hard work and affordable prices!
After we ship an order, we get emails like this:
ve got to say that the workmanship far exceeded what I could
have hoped for! It is solidly built, professional-looking, and looks
like it will be a rock-steady piece of equipment in use for a long
time. I'll be doing all I can to let others know how satisfied I am
with it!"
Stephen McGehee
Adjutant Software
"They work great, and I'm impressed with the production quality
on them and the low price too. You may notice from the
pictures, that our studio is rather small, so I'm glad these
teleprompters take up so little space. We're really pleased with
their function, Everyone who comes in, ioves to comment on
their small size and great picture quality,"
Joe McLaughlin
Medway Cable Access
"We are really enjoying both the teleprompter and the jib!"
Michael Murphy
USA Customer Care
The JonyJib comes in 3 sizes. The JonyJib Jr. is an 8' jib that is great for getting through
doorways and tight spaces where a larger jib just won't fit. It supports full size ENG style
cameras. The original JonyJib is a 12' jib and supports most ENG style cameras. The
JonyJib can also be extended to 18' with the 6' extension kit. This jib supports smaller
cameras, (up to 10 lbs) These jibs are not like any of the "toy" jibs you see advertised for
less than $500. These are full size, counterweighted, smooth glide jibs that can be controlled
with one hand. Prices range from $795 to $1 ,395. You just add your tripod and electronics.
Checkout our website and call us for a custom quote or to ask any questions!
We also have systems on ebay. We are Community Media friendly...
John Huffman
JonyJib
ing proft
tssional
''I'M:
■
* ;!! s - if ^ if i :■: f 1 ■
A Legal History of Public Access Television
Technology and Franchise Law Advance the Movement
by Neil J. Lento
Editor's note: Attorney Lehto provides
historical legal, legislative and regulatory
background to understand the fundamen-
tal role that the concept of public rights-
of-way has played in local cable franchis-
ing and PEG access.
yttc lcga! history of public access
• ■ ' » television has always been driven
by advances in technology and
municipal public utility franchise law.
Cable television began in 1948 as a
means of selling television sets in small
towns where reception of over-the-air TV
signals was poor because of long distance
or terrain. An appliance storeowner in
Tuckerman, Arkansas, connected one of
the first community antenna television
("CATV") system subscribers in the coun-
try to his 100- foot tower erected primari-
ly to feed 17 outlets in his store to broad-
cast signals from Memphis, the first tele-
vision station in the mid-South. His cus-
tomers paid $3 per month. Similar sys-
tems were installed that year in moun-
Lainous rural Astoria, Oregon and
Mahoney City, Pennsylvania.
Over the next 20 years, CAW systems
slowly spread across the country subject
to regulation only at the local level if they
strung wires on poles in the public streets
and highways, requiring permission in
most states from the local municipality in
the form of a franchise— a bedrock com-
mon law requirement dating back to 14th
century England. During that time, pro-
viding market and transportation servic-
es for the delivery of crops and goods,
such as wharves, canals, ferries, bridges
and toll roads, were vitally necessary but
enormously expensive, needing a govern-
ment-protected monopoly. These busi-
nesses came to be regarded as special
prerogatives of die King, whose permis-
sion and protection was needed in the
form of a charter to use a particular piece
of land for these purposes. The privilege
became known as a franchise and was
treated as a contract regulating prices
and methods of operation and was
required to serve all customers willing to
pay. In the United States, this sovereign
power fell to local government in the late
1800s with the building of telephone,
natural gas and electric systems.
It was not until 1965 that the broad
local government role in franchising
cable television systems as public utilities
was intruded upon by the federal govern-
ment for the protection of local broad-
casters. In 1965, the Federal Communica-
tions Commission
(FCC) adopted rules
for cable systems
receiving signals by
microwave antenna.
In 1966, the FCC
established rules for
all cable systems,
whether or not they
used microwaves.
These regulations
(1) required cable
systems to carry all
local television sta-
tions, (2) prohibited systems from carry-
ing programming on the same day from
another city mat duplicated a program
broadcast by a local station, and (3)
barred cable systems from importing dis-
tant station programming into the 100
major television markets in the country
without a hearing by the FCC on the local
impact of doing so. The U.S. Supreme
Court upheld these regulations in United
States v. Southwestern Cable Company} A
few years later, in TV Fix, Inc., v. Taylor?
the role of local government in regulating
cable television as a public utility subject
to the franchise requirement was upheld
by a three-judge court in a challenge to a
Nevada statute specifically providing for
such regulation.
In 1965, Sony introduced the Porta-
pak video recorder, inexpensively pro-
ducing black and white programs on
half-inch tape. Sony added a color sys-
tem in 1 968. Artists and activists in New
York City and elsewhere were quick to
adopt the Portapak as a new tool in art
and politics, and propelled arguments
that cable television systems set aside
channels for their local community pro-
gramming. Some cable operators did so
voluntarily as a means of promoting cus-
tomers. For example, in 1968, the Junior
Chamber of Commerce in Dale City, Vir-
ginia operated what may have been the
first public access channel on a cable tel-
evision system. That same year, Fred
Friendly, a pioneering CBS news produc-
er and distinguished broadcast scholar,
joined others on Mayor John F. Lindsay's
These technical and legal developments
converged on February 2, 1972, when the FCC
adopted new standards governing the award-
ing of cable television franchises, among other
things requiring cable systems with more than
3,500 subscribers to make facilities available
for the local production of programming on
public access channels.
Advisory Task Force on CAW and
Telecommunications in recommending
that new cable television franchise agree-
ments in New York City set aside two
channels for lease by the general public.
TV sets had a rotary dial from which
viewers selected a maximum 13 chan-
nels. Most cable systems carried only
three to five local broadcasters, leaving
plenty of unused channels. The city
awarded two franchise agreements in
1 970 setting aside two channels each for
the city government and the public at no
cost on a first come, first served basis.
Public access was born.
These technical and legal develop-
ments converged on February 2, 1 972,
when the FCC adopted new standards
governing the awarding of cable televi-
sion franchises, among other things
requiring cable systems with more than
3,500 subscribers to make facilities avail-
able for the local production of program-
ming on public access channels. The U.S.
Supreme Court upheld these provisions
in 1972.3 Although the Court did not
address the First Amendment in deciding
the case, it did recognize a legitimate
©1113
Technology Should Open Doors For Yo
Not Stand In Your Way.
Casablanca Prestige with DVD, Smart Edit 3.0 and Audio RubberBanding.
Let your personnel, volunteers and community members spend their time creating, editing and
delivering quality programming, not wrestling with complicated equipment. Casablanca Prestige
has everything you need to create your own productions, movies and daily or weekly shows that
you can output and broadcast now, and easily save to watch on your DVD player or VCR later.
The Casablanca SMART EDIT 3.0 software is so powerful, yet easy to learn, you'll be editing just
minutes after opening the box. Try it you will see that the Casablanca can handle the needs of
both beginners and professionals, yet you can teach newcomers to use Casablanca in no time at
all. Multiple project software allows each Prestige to be used by multiple users working on inde-
pendent projects, and removable hard drives mean you have unlimited storage options.
• Author DVDs quickly and easily with Arabesk DVD 2.1 authoring software
• Loads of included Transitions, Filters and Titling Effects
• Work in Direct DV for incredible, loss-free quality
• Rock-solid after-sale support & extensive online resources
•Casablanca models $1499 - $3499 suggested retail
•Take a Casablanca Home for a FREE Test Drive!
Find a participating Test Drive Dealer at www.casablanca.tv and take home a
Casablanca to Test Drive in YOUR studio with your footage, at no charge!
• Want to Learn to Edit for FREE?
We've got you covered. Casablanca University teaches you all the tricks the
pros know for creating top quality projects. Every new Casablanca unit comes
with Free Casablanca University tuition (a $399 value redeemable for 6 months).
MACRO ■ SYSTEM
information, please visit
www.casablanca.tv
email: info(»casablanca.tv
or call 303-440-531
government Interest in providing outlets
for public expression. However, the broad
reach of the FCC's rules came under criti-
cism in a concurring opinion by Chief
Justice Warren Burger. In reaction, the
FCC modified or eliminated its cable tel-
evision rules in succeeding years. The
FCC revised its rules requiring, but limit-
ing Public, Educational and Governmen-
tal (PEG) access channels, studio and
production equipment in 1976. The U.S.
Supreme Court in FCC v. Midwest Video
Corporation struck them down in 1979. 4
Rules allowing franchise fees of up to five
percent of gross revenues remained, but
the others were noted as voluntary pro-
cedures and guidelines until 1984 when
they were completely repealed. However,
by nullifying FCC preemption of the area,
Midwest Video was interpreted by many
as protecting the authority of local gov-
ernment to award and renew cable televi-
sion franchises requiring franchise fees,
PEG channels, studio and production
equipment.
In 1975, HBO revolutionized the cable
industry by delivering its programming
by satellite. Satellite delivery made it pos-
sible for cable systems to economically
provide a vast array of national program-
ming services to local subscribers —
movies, sports, news and specialized pro-
grams directed at important segments of
the television audience such as children,
minorities and senior citizens. As a direct
consequence, the cable television indus-
try boomed. The years 1975 to 1984, were
characterized in many cities by cable tel-
evision franchise bidding wars among
competing companies and charges of
municipal corruption. In June 1984, as
thousands of new cable television sys-
tems were being turned on, the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a ruling contain-
ing a lengthy and appreciative descriptive
history of the FCC's preemption of local
regulation. That ruling suggested that the
Court was ready to endorse policies that
would broadly deregulate the itidustry.5 It
was against this backdrop that the U.S.
Congress stepped in with adoption of the
U.S. Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984.6 The 1984 Cable Act legislatively
endorsed the local franchise require-
ment, capped franchise fees at five per-
cent of gross revenues and specifically
authorized municipal officials to require
PEG channels, studios and production
equipment, putting an end to FCC
attempts to preempt local government.
Some zealots in the cable industry
responded by bringing a series of consti-
tutional challenges against cities. The
leading cases were filed in the federal dis-
trict courts in California and dragged out
over the next 10 years. 7
Their legal theory had two important
prongs. First, they argued that attaching a
cable system to utility poles does not use
the public rights of way any differently
from the way publishers use them to
deliver newspapers. Second, they argued
that the public rights of way used by
cable television systems arc subject to
public forum analysis under the First
Amendment as applied in Miami Herald
v. Tornillofi This line of attack reached
the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 in City of
Los Angeles if, Preferred Communications,
Inc.® The case was a carefully arranged
challenge to municipal franchising by a
company that never did operate a cable
business. In fact, it was created solely for
the purpose of seeking a franchise from
the city as a matter of First Amendment
right. The court concluded that, while the
franchise process implicated protected
speech, it was "unwilling to decide the
legal questions posed... without a more
thoroughly developed record of proceed-
ings..."") Ultimately, the U.S. Ninth Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals struck down the
monopoly franchise process in Los Ange-
les on First Amendment grounds but the
case was not very meaningful either to
the cable industry or local government
because exclusive franchises have been
banned in many states since the late
1800s and, in 1992, the U.S. Congress
amended the Cable Act to prohibit cities
from unreasonable denying multiple
franchises.il it was adopted over the veto
of President George IT.W. Bush just days
before he was defeated for re-election by
Arkansas Governor William J. Clinton.
In other cases, the fundamental
requirement that cable systems must
obtain a local franchise, and lesser fran-
chise requirements that they set aside
PEG channels, a studio and production
equipment have never been successfully
challenged like similar requirements
have in the case of newspaper publishers.
"It is the need for a local franchise allow-
ing cable systems to use the public rights
of way to string its wires and lay its cables
in ducts under which these viewpoint
neutral facility requirements are negoti-
ated by local government officials with
cable operators..." 12 Unlike newspapers,
cable television systems control a great
part of the information a community
may receive. Therefore, they should be
subject to a great level of government
regulation. The courts have, therefore,
upheld content-neutral structural regula-
tion that fosters a diversity of program
viewpoints. Thus, franchise requirements
setting aside PEG channels have consis-
tently been sustained, 13
Neil J. Lehto is an a ttorney in private
practice in West Bloomfield, Michigan. He
specializes in representing local government
in dealings with cable television, telecom-
munications and other public utility mat-
ters.
I. 392 U.S. 157(1968).
2. 304 F. Supp. 459 [D. Nev. 1968} aff'd per
curiam 396 U.S. 566 (1970).
3. United States u. Midwest Video Corp., 406
U.S. 649 (1972].
4. 440 U.S. 689 (1979).
5. Capital Cities Cable Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S.
691 (1984).
fi. Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779 (1984)
codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 521 et seq.
7. Preferred Communications Inc. v. City of
Im Angeles, 754F.2d 1369 (9th Cir. 1985);
Group W Cable Inc. v. City of Santa Cruz, 669
F. Supp. 954 (N.D. Calif. 1987); Pac. W. Cable
Co. v. City of Sacramento, 672 F. Supp. 1322
(E.D. Calif. 1987).
8. 418 U.S. 241 (1974).
9. 476 U.S. 488(1986).
10. Id. at 495. Other courts similarly ducked
the issue of the appropriate First Amend-
ment standard for local cable television reg-
ulation. Century Communications Corp. v.
FCC, 835 F.2d 292 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Quincy
Cable IV Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434, 1448
(D.C. Cir. 1985).
II, 47 U.S.C, 541(a) (1).
12. Senate Committee on Commerce, Sci-
ence and Transportation, Cable Television
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, S. Rep.
No. 102-92, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 51 (1991)
{citing Omega Satellite Prod. v. City of Indi-
anapolis, 694 F.2d 119, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
13. Time Warner Entertainment Company v.
FCC, 93 E3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curi-
am) (rehearing en banc denied) 105 F,3d 723
(D.C. Cir. 1997). Telesal Cablevision Inc. v.
City of Riviera Beach, 773 F. Supp. 383, 411-
413 (S.D. Fla. 1991).
©tt15
We've Changed!
TiltRac Corporation has changed its
name to Synergy Broadcast Systems,
TILTRAC
SYNERGY
Broadcast Systems
"We cn-.se- Synergy Broadcast System.-.
What started as a contract manufacturing company has evolved into a recognized leader
primarily because, quite simply, they
in broadcast and video on demand solutions for the Public, Education and Government
listened when we explained our vision.
broadcast markets in the United States and Canada.
Other vendors came to the -table with :
preconceived notions of solutions that best
, fit their pwn products and were only
marginally a solution to our project.
; Synergy Broadcast listened to us and
Synergy Broadcast Systems is more reflective of what we do and how we do it. Our
approach is to provide our customers with a "turnkey solution" that covers the majority of
their broadcast needs. We focus on the customer as we work with them to build a system
helped us design the best total solunon."
that is configured to their needs and budget but much stronger and more feature rich than
the simple in tegration of a few components.
- Tony Short, Director, of Television Services
Our approach simplifies the design, purchase, delivery, installation and
"The Florida Department of Education
training, which, in the end saves both time and money for our customers.
chose the PEG-i-SYS System from
Synergy Broadcast based on industry
After the installation our Customer Service Group is available for assistance,
research and a desire to remain cost
problem-solving, and training to help our customers manage their daily operations.
■ effective and have flexible expansion
options
-Kim Bowman, Director,
The Flonda Knowledge Network
;
Contact us at 800-601-6991 or visit our new web site at www.synergybroadcast.com
to find out how Synergy Broadcast Systems can build a solution for you.
Death by a Thousand Cuts
Threats and Challenges to Access Survival
by Margie Nicholson
✓""yTclcar that the survival of access
^-■jf m the 21st century will depend
/* heavily (in the national legislative
and regulatory environment. But assum-
ing that the status quo is maintained on
the national level, here, just in time for
your next strategic planning meeting, is
an overview of the challenges and threats
that local access managers will be facing
over the next few years.
It's unlikely that you'll find any sur-
prises in this list, which was compiled
from a series of interviews with access
leaders in small and large communities
around the country. For most access
leaders the number one challenge to
access survival is funding and all aspects
of the continual effort to preserve,
attract, increase, raise or stretch their
dollars. Other major concerns are in the
area of marketing, promotions and pub-
lic education with the ongoing challenges
of involving citizens and potential users,
educating decision-makers and members
of the media, and attracting viewers. And
most access managers have faced, or will
be facing, the challenge of dealing with
controversial programming and with pro-
ducers who are "pushing the envelope." A
corollary to that, of course, is the chal-
lenge of responding to intolerance in The
community and attempting to uphold
the free speech ideals of our channels
and our country.
Other concerns of access managers
cluster around the area of technology,
including rhe need for constant re-tool-
ing and equipment upgrades and the
pressure to address and possibly incor-
porate the newer "hotter" technologies.
With increasing demands for channel
space and market penetration of the
newer programmable remote control
units, there's a danger that access chan-
nels will become "flyover territory." And
some access managers question whether
the rationale for access to production
equipment and distribution is eroding as
technology costs drop and new distribu-
tion channels emerge.
Some managers are re-thinking the
purpose of access and the role of the
access center; they wonder if adherence
to the historical philosophy and policies
of the access movement, is a threat to sur-
vival and growth. If we don't adapt, will
we disappear? Other access managers are
concerned about leadership, particularly
recruiting, educating and retaining quali-
fied and capable board members. Other
concerns include
the impact of the
economy on poten-
tial users, the chal-
lenge of finding
affordable space,
isolation from other
media centers and
the larger media
reform movement, and the need to
review our management practices and
update our strategic plans in lighi of
these issues.
Here are what access leaders from
various regions and organizations see as
the primary threats and challenges to
access on the local level. (The leaders are
identified by their initials; a key to names
and affiliations is provided at the end.)
FUNDING
• The federal regulatory framework is
weak, resulting in a patchwork quiit of
regulations at the local level and favoring
well-organized, deep-pocketed cable
companies. BP
• Cable companies have undergone
extensive consolidation over the years,
and they have increasingly regarded PEG
access as costly and expendable. Their
sheer size enables them to bring large-
scale resources to bear on local franchis-
ing authorities to influence them to
believe this lie. GEW
• The cable operators' service is so
bad that people are switching to satellite,
resulting in lower franchise fees and less
money for access, RR
• Because of the loss of cable modem
funds, which were supposed to support
our growth over the years, we've had to
shift our focus. DR
• Our member agencies (governments
and school districts) are all having budg-
et issues, and that creates budget issues
for us. JR
• Cities look at money given to us as
an alternate potential revenue stream so
we have to be sure we're perceived as
providing a service that's needed. JL
• You can diversify your revenue
sources, but it's impossible to replace
general operating support. AB
For most access leaders the number one
challenge to access survival is funding and
all aspects of the continual effort to preserve,
attract, increase, raise or stretch their dollars.
• Too many access organizations rely
too heavily on a single source of revenue
and 1 don't see much progress on devel-
oping alternate revenue streams. People
are not psychologically prepared to gen-
erate those revenues. CK
• We struggled for years and had lots
of community support. Now [thanks to
successful franchise negotiations] we
have new facilities with a bigger staff and
budget, and we hear, "you have too
much." You can fly under the radar when
you have nothing, but when you emerge
then you're a target. PL
• Our staff is young, overworked, and
underpaid. Turnover is high because we
don't have much money for salaries. JR
MARKETING, PUBLIC RELATIONS
AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
• Marketing: access centers can't
afford it, and cable companies won't do
it, so even now many residents aren't
aware of access. RR
• I have to spend time every week get-
ting the word out. We must blow our
horn or we'll be forgotten very quickly. JL
The number one greatest challenge we're
faced with is: who's watching? I'm not
suggesting a commercial model, but we
need to help producers identify and
attract target audiences. PL
• Public officials don't understand
wha t we do and the value of these chan-
(§S»17
nek They don't understand that broad-
band access is one of the most valuable
assets they have. SR
CONTROVERSIAL PROGRAMMING
• Programming about political topics,
such as race, the KKK, skinheads, or gay
issues, is becoming more of an issue. CK
• Jewish groups are incensed about an
Arab news program and are lighting to
get it off the channel bringing the media
and threatening lawsuits, NR
• There's an intolerance of different
points of view and the urge toward cen-
sorship. AB
• Local governments may see public
access as too political or too controversial
and choose to fund only educational and
governmental access, thus shutting out
non-profits and the general public, an
action that raises free speech issues. GEW
TECHNOLOGY
• As more and more channels appear,
access channels are getting lost in the
shuffle. RR
• We're trying to expand into new
areas of media beyond public access. SR
• We're streaming government meet-
ings and will add a low power FM license
if the third adjacent restriction is
removed in favor of the same restriction
placed on high power stations. AB
• New technologies allow cheaper,
more sophisticated at-home production.
Are access centers stuck in an old mode
rather than opportunistically taking
advantage of these new trends? GEW
• The rationale for access has been
based on a scarcity of access to media
and now we have the Internet which pro-
vides instant access to the world. It's a
challenge to recaiit interesting people as
producers because they have other out-
lets. PL
• People used to line up outside the
door and now we have to be more proac-
tive. We're no longer the coolest game in
town. PL
ACCESS PHILOSOPHY & PROGRAMMING
• First come, first served just doesn't
work anymore. Access requires a lot of
time. People, especially those from the
underserved groups in our communities,
don't have the economic resources to
spend that amount of time. And nonprof-
its don't have staff and time either
because their funds have been cut NR
• Access managers are seeing lots of
people who've had access for years and
many others who need it, but can't use
access based on our philosophy and rules
and their own organizational priorities
and resources. CK
• An access center needs to take its
own pulse. It is failing if it isn't making the
strongest possible efforts to be responsive
to its community and to involve a broad-
based constituency. BP
• The access center has to be impor-
tant to the community. If you come up for
renewal without community support,
you're in a bad bargaining position. Some
centers don't even do government pro-
gramming, so nobody knows who they
are. NR
• There's a danger of centers cutting
back on their outreach to new organiza-
tions, allies, and volunteers, and becom-
ing more incestuous. GEW
• We're trying to generate revenues by
adding a channel for local businesses but
our franchise agreement says we can't do
anything commercial. When the agree-
ment expires in five years, we'll be looking
to change that terminology, JL
• Do we have a narrow vision of our
mission? GEW
BOARD MEMBERS (Respondents are
anonymous by request.)
• It's hard to get a board that will really
work. That's a constant task.
• As more nonprofits are established,
the pool of good board members is
shrinking and it's harder to get good qual-
ified board members.
• Board members constantly change.
They don't understand their role and the
role of access. It's a huge undertaking to
educate them.
Other Issues
• Another problem is the isolation of
people in access from the larger political
movement to reform media in this coun-
try. We have to make connections and
alliances. Our isolation sets us up as an
easy target. SR
• Are access centers just providing the
nuts and bolts of production or should we
be providing more media literacy? Why
aren't access centers partnering with
other organizations doing media educa-
tion? CK
• We haven't done a good job of col-
laborating and partnering with other
community media organizations. Every-
body is focused on their own mission and
developing their own funding base. And
many media arts centers have a low opin-
ion of access programming and don't
want to be associated with it. CK
• Space has become an issue. We need
more space and this area is expensive.
DR
• Property values have skyrocketed.
It's hard to get affordable space. One cen-
ter has been trying to relocate for years.
NR
• An access center has to strengthen
its infrastructure and follow best prac-
tices for nonprofits. Otherwise, in a crisis,
things will fail apart. BP
Reviewing the list of challenges may
generate a few sleepless nights for access
managers, but doesn't it feel better to
know you're not alone? No matter how
issues are resolved on the national level,
as long as access survives, the ultimate
success of each center will depend on
leadership at the local level. Our local
access leaders, with the help of the
Alliance, will bear the responsibility for
identifying the threats, acknowledging
the challenges, and responding with all of
their creativity, determination and
resources. Stay tuned, as they say, for fur-
ther developments.
Thanks to the following access lead-
ers for their contributions: Alan
Bushong, Capital Community Television
(Salem, Oregon); Greg Epler Wood, for-
merly with CAT-TV (Bennington, Ver-
mont); Carl Kucharski, Portland Com-
munity Media (Portland, Oregon); Paul
LeValley, Arlington Community TV
(Arlington, Virginia); JimLundberg, Lake
Minnetonka Communications Commis-
sion (Spring Park, Minnesota); Barbara
Popovic, CAN TV (Chicago, Illinois);
Steve Ranieri, Quote... Unquote (Albu-
querque, New Mexico); Nancy Richard,
Plymouth Area Community Access Tele-
vision (Plymouth, Massachusetts); Debra
Rogers, Falmouth Community Television
(Falmouth, Massachusetts); James Rossi,
C-NET (State College, Pennsylvania); and
Ross Rowe, Village of Elk Grove (Elk
Grove, Illinois) .
Margie Nicholson teaches in the Senior
Seminar Program at Columbia College
Chicago, and can be reached at mnichol-
son@colurn.edu. She is the former chief oper-
ating officer for Chicago Access Corporation
and has served as a board member and
board chair of the Alliance (formerly
NFLCP).
Threats Seen: Alliance for Community Media
State Public Policy Coordinators Respond
by Greg Epler Wood
/****~jSo"years ago, Alliance members
were asked to volunteer to keep
y their eyes open in their respective
states for threats to PEG access, and to
report them back to the national office.
As of this date, 39 individuals repre-
senting 27 states have volunteered.
Sometimes the network is alerted by
Alliance staff of bills introduced in state
legislatures; other limes, individuals
independently report directly to staff.
Regardless, the Alliance staff compiles
and analyzes the information, looks for
trends, gauges the seriousness of the
threats and takes action when necessary
and when resources permit.
The State Public Policy Coordinators
were asked their perspectives for this
issue of the CMR, and here are, in aggre-
gate, the highlights of their responses
(many combined and edited for brevity
clarity and to maintain anonymity.)
At your local PEG access operation,
what weaknesses or problems do you see
at the managerial, governance or com-
munity levels that are inhibiting or
hurting PEG access?
"1 see several: • Inadequate operating
funds, made worse by loss of cable
modem franchise fees • Loss of house-
holds entered and revenue due to loss of
cable subscribers to satellite • Pressures
on and by local governments due to tight
funding • Inconsistent support from
cable administrators in some areas*
Uncertainty over franchise renewal,
channel capacity and capital funds •
Pressure from cable companies to take
away PEG channels; make PEG video-on-
demand"
"Tightening state budgets have had
direct impact on our operation as the city
here sees less and less shared revenue.
As we are established as a city budget, we
have been forced to take same lumps like
other departments in the last budget
cuts."
"There is a snowballing of city council
and city attorney specifically wanting to
pull programs. Education is still the key,
to educate cable boards, city councils,
county commissioners that while access
can have controversial programming on,
those programs can be managed and
there is more good then harm in having
Access their community."
"After 25 years, we are in franchise
renewal, and are experiencing a very real
war on free speech, civic inclusion and
due process regarding tire future of PEG
access and public access in particular.
An effort is being made by the City
Administrator to separate out and de-
fund the public access portion from the
PEG channel that we already have."
"One weakness I see is in building an
effective volunteer and training program
for the 21st century. The patterns of how
people use their free time have changed.
Access is no longer a "if we build it, they
will come," first-come first-served place -
we would die a painful death if we just
waited for people to see the light and
become active."
"The franchise agreement does not
provide for integrity of Public Access. PA
is dependent on municipal funding year
to year - being exploited by officials for
various attempts to control program-
ming."
"'Institutionalization' of PEG access is
limiting flexibility and responsiveness of
access providers. A large and well-fund-
ed access provider in a local urban center
lias lost connection to grass-roots and
acts more like a PBS wannabe - elitist,
arrogant, inflexible."
"Organizational concerns over liabili-
ty (legal and political) threaten to over-
shadow principled advocacy for free
speech and diverse access for local voic-
es."
At the regional or state level, if there
are any political, economic, legislative
or other influences that are negatively
affecting (or threatening) PEG access,
what are they?
"General state revenue-sharing cut-
backs have generally squeezed local gov-
ernment budgets in this state pretty hard
the past two years, with more expected
over the next few years. Government
access channels are feeling the pinch."
"Attacks on the abilities of communi-
ties to regulate the public right-of-w T ay,
without a doubt. The various industries
who want to do away with that control
have at least one, if not more, full-time
lobbyist in the state capitol and we, at
best, are part-time advocates. Legislators
bring these bills to the floor and we have
to muster the troops and rally a defense
year in and year out and it gets to be an
exhausting process."
"The state Republicans are trying to
pass a "taxpayers bill of rights" legislation
that would restrict local governments
from increasing taxes. If passed, this leg-
islation would have huge ramifications
on local government, and our operation
could be a casualty of the budget cuts."
"In our rural state, it is the isolation of
the centers that pose a challenge. The
cable companies have strong corporate
ties that can influence against PEG. While
we offer a unique product custom made
to the community, we still have to sell
that."
"Cable companies have a regular lob-
bying arm at state level that allows them
to find a sponsor and slip in a bad law
without counterbalancing lobbying
weight at the state level to protect public
access. At a minimum, it's important to
monitor laws, but we often hear about
them too late."
"Throughout the state there is a lack
of community needs assessments and
public inclusion when cable comes to a
new town or when a franchise renewal
occurs."
"As states look at deriving more rev-
enue, they may be looking at legislation
to have franchise fees paid to the state
rather than the local governments. We
must be vigilant in those states that have
relatively few access centers, because if
state legislators are not familiar with
access, it is very easy for them to create
unfavorable conditions for PEG."
"In most cases, franchise fee revenues
have declined since April 2002 when
cable operators stopped including cable
see Throats, page 37
©■119
The PBSing
of Access TV
or How To Sell The Farm
Without Knowing It
by Dirk Koning
Most of the early pioneers are realizing they have no
retirement and need to seek comfort over preservation of
the "cause." Young people come into community television
and see a career, not a cause. The "piss and vinegar" of our
youth has been replaced by "martinis and olives." We have
become "comfortably numb."
£ vWas the late 1970s when this
^ /Michigan State University journal -
t S ism major took an internship at the
local PBS television station. The energy
was palpable., lots of students helping a
few professional staff produce local pro-
grams "that mattered." Of course we had
the obligatory on-air fund drives and
auctions, but even those somehow felt
fresh and had a lot of community
involvement. Some of the crusty old-time
PBS staff complained of the creeping
transition from locally-based program-
ming to satellite feeds, and the ever-
increasing amount of corporate under-
writing and pledge drive time.
The original language used at the PBS
station to describe their management
model was "Student Operated, Profes-
sionally Staffed." I arrived at about the
time they dropped that moniker and
went to "Professionally Run, Student
Assisted." Today, our local PBS station
has few interns, and most of the local
production staff spends most of their
time producing underwriting spots or
propping for the fund drives.
It scares me to think that Public
access cable television is following the
same path as PBS. They both started out
with an attitude of alternative activism
and local programming. They both start-
ed out giving non-professionals a lot of
responsibility and influence. They both
started out intentionally setting them-
selves apaTt from commercial media.
They both started out paying homage to
localism and content over "broadcast
quality."
Our Public access contract with the
city still says we can't produce "regular
programming," which means our access
organization doesn't have any fixed, regu-
lar time slotted programs produced by
staff. We were expressly established to
assist and enable citizen producers to use
television to tell their stories. I think this
principle was formed to keep staff from
monopolizing the equipment and chan-
nel for "professional" productions. Staff is
hired to assist the community, not to pro-
duce programs.
Obviously, I think we have room for
both in the current state of affairs with
community television. But if entries in
the Alliance's Hometown Video competi-
tion are any indication, the pendulum
has swung over the years from a majority
of citizen producers to a majority of staff
producers. This could be due to more
staff, entry fees or marketing, but I con-
tend thai as public access or community
television matures, it is following a simi-
lar path as PBS.
More community television channels
today have less to do with activism. We
have matured with staff and financing
into "respectable" community institu-
tions concerned with survival beyond
principles. On one hand we should cele-
brate becoming community institutions,
but it invites more traditional media folks
to join our ranks because the paychecks
are decent and we have health benefits.
Most of the early pioneers are realizing
they have no retirement and need to seek
comfort over preservation of the "cause."
Young people come into community tele-
vision and see a career, not a cause. The
"piss and vinegar" of our youth has been
replaced by "martinis and olives." We
have become "comfortably numb."
I suppose it is somewhat understand-
able, maybe even smart, to be the lap dog
of our cities because we get most of our
funding from them. But when push
comes to shove [and it will) we will have
to trade principles for profit. We will start
to look like all the other channels and
folks will wonder why we — in this capi-
talist economy — don't "fend for our-
selves" and become self-supporting like
PBS. They run commercials now. They
are marketing their "extra digital spec-
trum" to commercial providers. They
have dropped almost all that "pesky,
expensive" local programming for the
"broadcast quality," though no less
expensive, stuff flowing down like acid
rain from satellites. They dodge contro-
versy because "it cuts into the bottom
line."
If this happens to us, we don't deserve
our channels. One of the fundamental
legal standings for "taking" these chan-
nels from the cable company is the open
forum argument. The Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution concludes with
the words ".. .nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just com-
pensation."
Maybe the tradeoff for the cable oper-
ator's use of the rights-of-way wilt cover
us, but the franchise fees already suck up
most of that. The courts have validated
these channels because they me public
fora, open space, content neutral, etc. If
we begin to operate them as 'club TV or
the 'voice of the majority' we lose the
legal underpinning that substantiates the
channels. The beauty of the Bill of Rights
is that it protects the minority from the
tyranny of the majority.
Our challenge is to constantly exam-
ine our reason for being. We aren't just
TV. Community television was created as
a free speech platform open on a first
I come, first served basis to all— content
neutral. If we succumb to the siren call of
popularity, ratings and 'white bread'
offerings, then this historically unique
and noble experiment in free expression
is lost.
Can we do the delicate dance of staff-
produced, quality local programming
while encouraging citizens to continue to
produce even if they "bite the hand that
feeds us?"
PBS hasn't been able to, let's hope we
can.
Dirk Koning (dirWgrcmc.org) is execu-
tive director of the Community Media Center
in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
20mm
The Policy of Convergence: Threat or
Opportunity for Local Government?
IP-enabled services will drive the development of a new com-
munications policy, and will necessarily include policy consid-
erations such as regulatory parity and the public interest
BY LlBBY BEATY
f'jfis easy to imagine a converged
world in which consumers receive
K^/ voice, video and data through a sin-
gle wire-line or wireless service and have
choices amongst multiple providers.
While it is easy to imagine this new world,
it will not be as easy to craft a communi-
cations policy for this new world. And
time is of the essence, because already
Internet Protocol (IP) -enabled services
have allowed what used to be sole
providers of voice, video and data to enter
each others' dominions, and have
spawned new competitive enterprises that
strain our existing regulatory structure.
This trend towards IP-enabled servic-
es delivered over broadband holds great
promise and even greater challenges. As
services are shifted off of traditional plat-
forms like wireline telephone and cable, it
affects the underlying regulatory struc-
ture under which they came into being.
As video shifts from the cable platform to
the cable modem platform, so too will the
revenues derived by local governments
under their traditional cable franchises.
And it is likely that shift will create new
pressures on local government to find
funding for traditional services like PEG.
The challenge we all face, local govern-
ment and access program providers alike,
is to find creative means to preserve those
services which are currently provided,
while not ignoring the future and promise
of IP- delivered services.
With the concentration that has
occurred within the media marketplace
over the past few years, the choices and
voices of localism are challenged more
than ever before. The role that our local
governments and their access providers
play in educating and stimulating the
needs and interests of our local citizenry
is more important than ever. While con-
tinuing to serve in a world that is analog-
and wire -based, we must complete our
own transitions to digital and packets. In
order to do so, we must preserve the very
important public interest obligations of
those using public resources to ensure
the preservation of the valuable tool in
our democracy.
In writing the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (1996 Act), legislators were
aware of convergence, but did not plan
for a network boundary breaking plat-
form, such as IP-enabled services. IP-
enabled services will drive the develop-
ment of a new communications policy,
and will necessarily include policy con-
siderations such as regulatory parity and
the public interest. As Congress works to
craft new communications policy, there
will be much debate and a variety of
views expressed. It is important that the
role local government plays and the
importance of community media, is not
lost in this debate.
Years of discussion and debate pre-
ceded Congress' passage of the 1996 Act.
In this landmark legislation Congress
rewrote aspects of our nation's communi-
cations policy, providing regulatory relief
with the view that the efficiencies of a
competitive marketplace w^ould meet
most public interest goals through lower
prices, better quality and more choice for
consumers. While providing regulatory
relief, Congress also preserved some of
the traditional public interest goals such
as Universal Service, Disability Access, the
911 system and Communications Assis-
tance for Law Enforcement. Despite these
efforts, eight years later, consumers do
not have much more choice in the video
or local telephony market. However, with
the proliferation of the Internet and wider
deployment of broadband, consumers do
have greater choice in the broadband
market.
IP-enabled services over these broad-
band connections now have the ability to
turn the telecommunications industry on
end, creating a highly competitive market
with greater consumer choice. Entrench-
ed competitors, who chose not to com-
pete with other incumbents in their core
business areas, may soon have no choice.
With only a broadband connection need-
ed to subscribe, IP-enabled service
providers like Vonage are offering new
services, including Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP). Cable companies are
now moving to offer VoIP services to their
customers, with one of the largest cable
companies promising the majority of
their customers will be offered the service
before the end of 2004. And, voice is just
one of the services being offered. Others
have already begun to experiment with
the delivery of video over IP — from fea-
ture length movies on demand to news
and public interest reports.
As the platform over which voice,
video or data service is received is fast
becoming irrelevant, Congress will need
to rewrite the Communications Act.
Those telecommunications sectors that
perceive themselves to be more highly
regulated argue for equality in the form of
regulatory relief to be able to better com-
pete. Unfortunately, the approach is often
one looking for that which seeks the low-
est common denominator, and not one
which raises all providers to higher, belter
standards of performance and service.
These calls for regulatory relief began
with the passage of the 1996 Act, and
have become more fervent as VoIP
becomes more prevalent. While regulato-
ry parity will be a major goal of a new
communications policy, forbearance from
excess regulation will be championed by
the telecommunications industry as a
whole. Companies that are offering or
plan on offering IP-enabled services want
to be able to do so without the legacy
constraints of their former offerings. In
fact, legislation has already been intro-
duced in Congress to prevent the regula-
tion of VoIP services. While drese pieces
of legislation are no t likely to move for-
ward in this session of Congres, the ideas
behind the legislation will be carried forth
GUI
in this debate. Some legislators will
advance a "free-market" agenda with the
new that public interest is best served
through competition. Other members
will recognize the need to require
providers to meet public interest obliga-
tions, justified through their use of limit-
ed public resources, such as spectrum,
and public rights of ways, and based on
the very nature of the communications
industry and its importance to our
democracy.
This trend towards IP-enabled servic-
es delivered over broadband holds great
promise and even greater challenges. As
services are shifted off of traditional plat-
forms like wireline telephone and cable, it
affects the underlying legacy regulatory
structure under which they came into
being. As -video shifts from the cable plat-
form to the cable modem platform, so too
will the revenues derived by local govern-
ments under their traditional cable fran-
chises. And it is likely that shift will create
new pressures on local government to
find funding for traditional services like
PEG. The challenge wc all face, local gov-
ernment and access program providers
alike, is to find creative means to preserve
those services which are currently provid-
ed, while not ignoring the future and
promise of IP-delivered services.
Further, with the concentration that
has occurred within the media market-
place over the past few years, the choices
and voices of localism are challenged
more than ever before. The role that our
local governments and their access
providers play in educating and stimulat-
ing the needs and interests of our local
citizenry is more important than ever.
While continuing to serve in a world that
is analog and wire-based, we must com-
plete our own transitions to digital and
packets. In order to do so, we must pre-
serve the very important public interest
obligations of those using public
resources to ensure the preservation of
the valuable tool in our democracy.
It is critically important that as Con-
gress works to craft new communications
policy that individuals in support of the
public interest in the form of localism
and community based programming
speak loudly. While there will be much
disagreement amongst different types of
providers as to what constitutes a level
playing field or regulatory parity, there
will be agreement amongst the industry,
given the blank slate on which this com-
munications policy may be developed,
that Congress should forbear from excess
regulation. And, given that only cable
provides capacity for PEG today, there
will be pressure to remove that require-
ment in the name of equality or parity.
The risk is that in the creation of an
entirety new policy, traditional public
interest obligations and the value that
localism and diversity of voices will be
lost in the debate or even ignored, but
there is also enormous potential. It is
important that local governments and
their access community not only demon-
strate to legislators the benefits and
importance of local community-based
programming and access channels, but
their potential to serve the public in an
IP-enabled world.
Libby Beaty is executive director of the
Na tional Association of Telecommunications
Officers and Advisors (NATOA). The mission
of NATOA is to support and serve the
telecommunications interests and needs of
local governments. NATOA is a professional
association made up of individuals and
organizations responsible for — or advising
those responsible for — telecommunications
policies and services in local governments
throughout the country. Prior to joining
NATOA, Libby served as the deputy director
of Legislative and lntergovernmen tal Affa irs
at the Federal Communications Commission
in Washington, DC. She also worked for
many years in the Cable Services and Mass
Media Bureaus at the agency. She earned her
B.A.ffom Warren Wilson College in Swan-
nanoa, North Carolina and earned her J.D.
from Brooklyn Law School in New York. She
is a member of the Bar in the State of New
York and the District of Columbia,
Acme Cable Destruction, Inc.
Road Runner or Wile E. Coyote?
by Dirk Koning
Sources requesting anonymity report that high-level discus-
sions among lawyers in the cable industry have included
Constitution-based rationale for the elimination of public
access. Try these arguments on for size:
First Amendment Grounds. The cable industry is a 'speak-
er' and its members' First Amendment speech rights are
violated by forcing them to carry PEG access. This 'telepub-
lisher' model equates cable operators to a newspaper. That
is, it would be unconstitutional for a city to require a news-
paper that uses the public rights of way (its streets) to hand
over a blank page to a public access group to facilitate mes-
sages from the community and then make the newspaper
distribute those messages.
Fifth Amendment Grounds. The last sentence of Amend-
ment V to the United States Constitution states, "...nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just com-
pensation." Some cable industrialists may argue the fran-
chise fee payment covers the quid pro quo trade out for the
public rights of way, and that the "taking" of die channels
(i.e., private property) without just compensation (i.e., cash)
is unconstitutional.
Fourteenth Amendment Grounds, "...nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws." This is arguably the weak-
est link of the three approaches, but there is a long history
of due process rulings, and to hear cable industrialists
claiming that public access channels deprive them of 'prop-
erty' isn't that far-fetched.
i The war for liberty never ends. One day liberty has to be
defended against the power of wealth, on another day
against the intrigues of politicians, on another against the
dead hand of bureaucrats, on another against the patriot
and the militarist, on another against the profiteer, and then
against the hysteria and the passions of the mobs, against
obscurantism and stupidity, against the criminal and against
the overrighteous. In this campaign every civilized man is
enlisted till he dies, and he only has known, the full joy of liv-
ing who somewhere and at some time has struck a decisive
blow for the freedom of the human spirit. 3
-Walter Lippmann
22«
Stay Tuned: Fulfilling Cable's Promise
in the Franchise Renewal Process
by Jeffrey Chester
Editors Note: litis speech was delivered
at a Symposium on the Los Angeles Cable
System on March 4, 2004 to lay the ground-
work for the public interest during upcom-
ing cable franchise negotiations. It serves as
a helpful template for pending negotiations
in all parts of the United States.
/ ]fc>\e is the leading provider of both
£ \ multichannel TV and broadband
access in the U.S. It is now an
essential "lifeline" to the digital age, deliv-
ering hundreds of channels, on-demand
content, and interactive online applica-
tions. Los Angeles' citizens, consumers,
nonprofits, and businesses will increas-
ingly rely on the infrastructure — lire
upgraded cable plant — that will be devel-
oped as pari of the franchise renewal
process. Given the city's diverse popula-
tion and leading role in media production,
it is incumbent upon Los Angeles to nego-
tiate an agreement that genuinely reflects
the legion's varied demography and
dynam ic economy.
The cable industry has not always been
a willing partner in meeting these several
needs, however. Cable operators have
often fallen short in providing communi-
ties with networks of sufficient capacity for
two-way interactivity, for example, failing
to deliver system upgrades in a timely
fashion and limiting the amount of fiber in
their hybrid fiber/coax (HFC) systems.
Much more capable, "next-generation" set-
top boxes are long overdue, and broad-
band Internet connections have been less
than robust (reflecting the industry-wide
decision — which speaks volumes about
the vision of the field — to devote less than
one percent of total system capacity' to
Internet transport).
On the regulatory and legal front, the
cable industry has proved even more
recalcitrant. It has fought to prevent any
"open access" provisions that would per-
mit Internet Service Provider (ISP) compe-
tition, and has similarly opposed nondis-
criminatory transport guarantees for
Internet traffic. In communities such as
San Jose, California, cable has rejected the
city's request for a set-aside of up to 10
percent of system bandwidth for public
use, and for an institutional network for
city buildings and school — the basis for a
range of digital services that o ther cities
have used to foster public expression and
civic participation. In light of the indus-
try's unfortunate record at the franchise
bargaining table, then, the Los Angeles
City Council should be fully prepared to
confront the cable incumbents' likely
objections to a franchise that will make
Los Angeles a national leader in providing
21st century cable-related benefits to its
residents.
In this critical period of transition—
from analog to digital, from dial-up to
broadband— the stakes are even higher for
local governments when dealing with
cable franchise renewals. As more Ameri-
cans — citizens and consumers alike, non-
profit organizations and commercial
enterprises— rely on cable broadband con-
nections, the city must ensure that the net-
work is both robust and readily accessible,
so it can foster the full range of civic, edu-
cational, and cultural applications that are
essential to the growth of the community.
Listed below are ten areas of concern
— five overarching themes and five specif-
ic franchise requests — that hold the key to
realizing the full potential of cable in the
broadband era.
1. Digital Democracy: Growing num-
bers of citizens are engaged in chic activi-
ties online. From license renewals to voter
education to legislative and regulatory
affairs, LAs citizens will rely on the cable
network for interactive access to govern-
ment-related services. The public should
have easy access to this "online civic sec-
tor," everything from candidate profiles
and electoral issues to discussion forums
and interactive town meetings.
The e-Gov FirstStop (http:llwww2.ctg.
albany.edu/egovfirststap/) website, a proj-
ect of the Center for Technology and Gov-
ernment (www.ctg.albany.edu) at SUNY-
Albany, offers online resources on the use
of information technologies in the public
sector.
2. Economic Development: Small
neighborhood businesses and entrepre-
neurs are the lifeblood of the local econo-
my. In order to survive, let alone prosper,
they will need to utilize online services for
marketing and purchasing. Commercial
start-ups from diverse groups are especial-
ly vital to LA's well being. Cable must pro-
vide all neighborhoods with a network and
a service model that supports the growth
of community commerce.
Cornell University and Penn State Uni-
versity have collaborated on the Commu-
nity and Economic Development Toolbox
| for rural communities (http://www.fman-
ceprojectinfo.org/Rural/ruralecodevelop-
ment.asp). Other resources are available
through the USDA (http://www.ezec.gov
/Toolbox/) and the University of Illinois
(http:llwww.communitydevelopment.uluc.
edulcfarsriit.html)
3. Independent Media Production:
LA's role as a global center for production
and distribution will be affected by the
cable franchise. First, the city must ensure
that fiber connections are available to sup-
port high -bandwidth applications for the
myriad of production centers. Second, LA's
cable systems must support independent
production and distribution by ensuring
they have access to video servers, elec-
tronic program guides, set-top storage
devices, and other network elements
essentia] to broad consumer access.
Comcast's new On Demand program-
ming service is a good example of what
the new digital cable platform could offer
to independent producers and program-
mers if it were an open rather than a
closed system, {http:liwww.comcast.com
/Benefits/CableDetails/Slot2PageOne,asp).
4. Non-Discrimination: Cable has
sought favorable rulings at die FCC that
i shield it from competition in the broad-
band Internet's critical "last-mile" connec-
tions (as have the former "Baby Bells" for
their DSL networks). Leading scholars and
media companies— including Amazon,
Microsoft and Disney — have urged for a
policy of "network neutrality" that would
ensure all applications are treated fairly.
While these issues are the subject of litiga-
tion and federal debate, LA should receive
written assurances from every cable com-
pany that they will treat all applications in
a wholly "neutral" fashion.
Scholars Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig
©K23
have discussed the importance of preserv-
ing network neutrality in the broadband
environment in a filing (PDF) with the
FCC. (http'JIfaculty, virginia.edu
ltimwulwu_lessig_fcc.pdf).
5. Capacity: Today's cable plant can
deliver hundreds of channels and broad-
band access. But cable has traditionally
devoted just a single channel to broad-
band transport — clearly insufficient for
LA's advanced communications needs.
Cable operators must make additional
bandwidth available to ensure a robust
pialform for Internet applications. In
addition, cable companies should provide
video channel capacity for programmers
offering city-based services who are unaf-
filiated with the cable industry.
Andrew Afflerbach analyzes existing
cable systems and assesses the potential
for a public interest architecture" in his
"Technological Analysis of Open Access
and Cable Television Systems."
(http://archive.aclu.org/issueslcybertbroad-
bandj-eport.pdf).
If these are the broad outlines of a
cable system that finally fulfills its civic
potential, the basic elements of a success-
ful franchise renewal are as follows:
1 . The PEG Platform: While Public,
Education, and Government-access chan-
nels have long been at the heart of fran-
chise negotiations, this platform must
now be brought into the 21st century, tak-
ing full advantage of the new capabili-
ties—including digital multicasting, video
on demand, and interactive data servic-
es—that are part of modern cable systems
today.
One of the best examples of forward
PEG thinking is the Grand Rapids Com-
munity Media Center (www.grcmc.org).
2, Spectrum Flexibility: One of the
keys to the reinvigoration of PEG is the
shift in our thinking from discrete video
channels to a more flexible bandwidth
set-aside— 75 MHz to 86 MHz. Such
capacity (representing some 12 to 14 ana-
log channels or 60 to 80 digital channels)
can be put to a variety of public-interest
uses, including traditional video program-
ming but by no means restricted to that
paradigm.
The International Engineering Con-
sortium's On-Line Education program
(www.iec. org/ online/tutorials) includes
tutorials on Hybrid/Fiber Coax HFC Net-
works (www.iec.org/online/tutorials
Ihfc.dwdm!) and on Cable Modems
(www.iec.org/ordineltutorialslcabie_modli
24«
opic03.html ).
3. Institutional Network: A high-speed
institutional network can be used to link
more than municipal departments and
buildings. Such networks can encompass
a wide range of community resources —
from schools and libraries to social service
agencies and cultural organizations —
adding much needed civic, educational,
and cultural content to an online world
that is fast becoming merely another out-
let for the entertainment conglomerates.
The Pittsburgh 1-Nct Working Group
maintains an online compendium of
information and articles on institutional
networks (http://www.pgh-inet.org).
4. Support Structures: Without the
rich programming resources to flow
through them, cable's PEG pipes mean lit-
tle. But such operations cost money, and
serious consideration must be given to
expanding PEG stipport beyond the tradi-
tional sources (which include up a negoti-
ated amount for PEG equipment and
facilities, and whatever share of the five
percent franchise fee that is earmarked for
PEG programming) to include entirely
new funding structures that draw on pub-
lic and private sources alike.
The Alliance for Community Media
website includes news and information
relating to public access funding issues
(http:llwww.aiiiancecm.org).
5. System Extensibility: Although
cable franchise agreements are normally
measured in 10- to 15-year- segments, the
technologies involved mature much more
swiftly. Thus local franchise authorities
should build provisions into their agree-
ments for ensuring that PEG and other
public interest aspects of the system can
take full advantage of the technological
advancements that occur during the term
of the franchise.
The CableLabs (www.cableiabs.org)
website offers a glimpse of the future of
cable, including next-generation cable
modem (www.cablemodem.org) technolo-
gies.
With a concerted effort at die upcom-
ing franchise renewal negotiations, and
with adequate funding thereafter, Los
Angeles' new digital PEG platform could
prove to be a model for the nation. These
new facilities could serve, in effect, as lab-
oratories for the exploration of communi-
ty, educational, and municipal services
using the new broadband technologies
that the cable industry will be introducing
over the next several months, including
video on demand, interactive television,
streaming media, voice over IR wireless
networking, and whatever other new
applications that will become possible
once cable upgrades to DOCSIS 2.0
(www.cablemodern.com) and PacketCable
(www.packetcabie.com) implementations
(the networking and interface protocols
and specifications for delivering
advanced, real-time multimedia services
over two-way cable plant).
Traditional PEG programming, offered
over analog video channels, has served
communities well for some three decades.
While such programming will continue to
be important during this time of transi-
tion, it is not too early to begin planning
for the next generation of public service
programming — both interactive and
archival, with real-time, on-demand
transactions and other residential, busi-
ness, and mobile services transmitted by a
variety of wired and wireless devices.
As the cable industry and others in the
media marketplace actively seek the next
"killer apps," in other words, we should be
no less ambitious in discovering their
public-interest counterparts, online appli-
cations that place the power of advanced
telecommunications squarely in the
hands of citizens and the community
organizations that serve them.
Jeffrey Chester (iefftMemocraticnwdia.org)
is executive director of the Center for Digital
Democracy (www.democraticmedia.org), a
nonprofit organization dedicated to preserv-
ing the openness and diversity of the Internet
in the broadband era, and to realizing the full
potential of digital communications through
the development and encouragement of non-
commercial, public interest programming.
While [traditional] programming will continue to be important
during this time of transition, it is not too early to begin planning
for the next generation of public service programming — both inter-
active and archival with real-time, on-demand transactions and
other residential, business, and mobile services transmitted by a
variety of wired and wireless devices.
Legal, Regulatory and Legislative
Threats to PEG Access
by James N. Norwood
/^)arlier this year I appeared on a dis-
cussion program on MCTV, the
J public access channel in Mont-
gomery County, Maryland and was asked
by the host/moderator to describe the
general state of PEG access across the
country, The first thought that came to
mind, and from there out of my mouth,
was "under siege." Upon further reflec-
tion, that, sound bite still best captures
my views. Some of the threats are direct
and obvious while others are indirect, but
no less real. The two on which 1 place the
most emphasis in this article are a chal-
lenge by Comcast to the franchise renew-
al process in San Jose, California and
issues involved with converging tech-
nologies. The Comcast challenge in San
Jose, if successful, could greatly impair
the ability of local franchise authorities to
require capacity and support for PEG
access. As technologies converge and
services are delivered over a single plat-
form, there will be unrelenting pressure
from industry for comparable govern-
ment treatment of all providers and for it
to be for minimal government involve-
ment. This will place cable franchise fees,
and resources available for PEG, at great
risk.
Comcast v. San Jose
The most direct challenge to PEG
involves a pending cable franchise
renewal in San Jose. The city conducted a
formal community needs assessment
and issued a request for renewal proposal
(RFRP) . The city council found that the
proposal submitted by Comcast in
response to the RFRP was inadequate to
address community needs, preliminarily
denied the renewal and authorized the
city manager to commence the adminis-
trative hearing required by the federal
Cable Act. The city selected a hearing
officer and established a set of rules for
conduct of the hearing. Comcast object-
ed to the rules and filed a complaint for
injunctive and declaratory relief in feder-
al court. Comcast alleged that (1) the
RFRP included illegal conditions that
unlawfully butdened its right to free
speech, (2) the rules for the hearing vio-
lated Comcast's procedural due process
rights, (3) the RFRP and the rules violated
the federal Cable Act, (4) the RFRP, by-
requiring Comcast to incur costs to con-
struct an institutional network linking
city buildings that would ultimately be
passed through to subscribers, violated
state law, and (5) the rules improperly
provided for the hearing to be conducted
before a hearing officer rather than
before the city council.
Comcast filed a motion for a prelimi-
nary injunction, seeking to stop the
administrative hearing. In September
2003, the court denied Comcast's motion.
It ruled that Comcast's claims under the
Cable Act were not ripe, since the City
had not denied Comcast's application for
a renewal and Comcast had not yet been
adversely affected. As for Comcast's
claims under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, the court found that Com-
cast had not demonstrated probable suc-
cess on the merits and the possibility of
irreparable harm. The coutt said the city's
renewal requests are "content-neutral,"
serve the important government interests
identified in the 'Needs and Analysis
Report' provided to Comcast, and appear
to be narrowly tailored to achieve these
needs."
Particularly important are the court's
findings that First Amendment consider-
ations did not constitute a basis for stop-
ping the renewal proceeding at the outset
and that the city council itself did not
have to preside over and attend the on-
the-record administrative Hearing
required by the federal Cable Act, but
could delegate the conduct of the hearing
to a hearing officer. The judge observed
that the "city's day-to-day operations
could come to a grinding halt if the coun-
cil was required to conduct an adminis-
trative hearing in this case..."
The administrative hearing is sched-
uled to begin in December. The outcome
of that hearing, the action ultimately
taken by the city council, and any appeal
of the reform (if the council were to deny
renewal) will be of critical importance to
the ability of local franchise authorities to
require capacity' and support for PEG
access in the future. Unless the parties
settle their dispute beforehand, action by
the city council is probably a year away.
Converging Technologies
There will be considerable efforts by
industry to eliminate (or greatly reduce)
all forms of government control or regula-
tion of video, voice and data services as
they are delivered over the same physical
platform. The buzz words will include
"level playing field," "innovation," and
"encourage investment." The issue is
squarely and immediately presented in
the evolution and shift of traditional tele-
phone service from the public switched
telephone network onto IP-enabled serv-
ices (services accessed over the Internet).
The regulatory treatment of Voice over IP
(VoIP) has been the subject of court liti-
gation, FCC orders and in a broader rule-
making proceeding initiated by the FCC
in March dealing with IP enabled servic-
es. In its notice of proposed rulemaking,
the FCC asked a series of question that
frame the issue from its regulatory view-
point:
IP-enabled services, such as VoIP, also
can be — and often are — provided over
cable facilities. What impact, if any,
should the provision of broadband over
cable plant have on the Commission's
treatment of IP- enabled set vices? What
effect, if any, does Title VI of the Act have
on any potential regulation of cable-
based IP- enabled services? [For example,
Title VI and our implementing rules gov-
ern the video programming that a cable
operator must carry...; establish rules
that prevent a cable operator from unfair-
ly withholding affiliated video program-
ming and establish and limit the
authority for local franchises to regulate
cable operators.) If the Commission
determines that IP-enabled services, or
any particular class of IP-enabled servic-
es, arc telecommunications services,
should the Commission forbear from
applying ceitain Title II provisions to
cable providers' offering IP-enabled serv-
ices? Alternatively, if the Commission
determines that some or all IP-enabled
services constitute information services,
could the Commission use its ancillary
«25
What's in a 'Title'? A Quick Reference
The FCC regulates telecommunication services under the Cable Communica-
tion Act of 1 934, as amended by the Cable Act of 1 984 and by the Telecommunica-
tion Act of 1996. The law is categorized into "Titles," three of which are of greatest
interest to us.
Title II: Regulation of common carriers, which includes providers of "telecom-
munications services," primarily telephone.
Title III: Regulation of broadcast radio, television and mobile services.
Title VI: Regulation of cable television services.
The FCC has classified cable modem service as an interstate "information serv-
ice," and as such would not be subject to the requirements of either Title II or Tide
VI. Its decision has been reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit,
and it may seek a review of that decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
jurisdiction to apply any Title II-like obli-
gation to any cable providers of IP-
enabled services? If so, what is the basis
for an exercise of that authority? Finally,
is any class of IP-enabled services prop-
erly classified under the Act as "cable
service"? If so, what regulatory require-
ments, if any, would apply to those serv-
ices? Specifically, should any class of VoIP
or other IP-enabled service be construed
to be a "cable service" for franchising
purposes? In responding to these ques-
tions, we ask commenters to explain
whether the Commission should make
any distinction among categories of cable
providers for regulatory purposes.
What does this mean for PEG access?
If services delivered over an IP platform
are not considered "cable service," there
would likely be either limited ability, or
no ability, for focal governments to fran-
chise such service or collect franchise
fees from such service. We have seen this
happen with cable modem service (deliv-
ered over the Internet) where, because of
an FCC finding that it is not a "cable serv-
ice," cable operators have refused to
include the revenues from cable modem
service in calculating franchise fee pay-
ments. A reduction of franchise fee rev-
enues will inexorably translate into a
reduction in resources available for PEG
unless a different model for PEG funding
is developed and implemented. (We are
currently seeing pressure to reduce fund-
ing for PEG as cash-strapped local gov-
ernments look to franchise fee revenues
to fund its activities — this at times pits
governmental, educational and public
access interests against each other in
seeking shares of a reduced pie.)
The concern of local governments
and PEG access interests over loss of
franchise fee revenues associated with
services delivered over an IP platform has
been a major factor in efforts by them to
defeat the Internet Tax Non-Discrimina-
tion Act in Congress this year, because,
among other concerns, passage of that
Act as proposed, which would have great-
ly expanded the scope of the Internet Tax
Freedom Act of 1 998, could eventually
lead to elimination of cable franchise fees
if cable is delivered over an IP platform.
The U.S. Senate passed a bill that moder-
ated the bill to extend the existing mora-
torium on state and local taxes on inter-
net access and electronic taxes, but
grandfathering existing taxes, it exempts
taxes on charges for VoIP from the mora-
torium. The bill passed by the House,
however, is not so moderated and the
outcome awaits the result of conference
between the Senate and House.
A La Carte Pricing of Cable
An issue that has recently surfaced is
federal legislation introduced this spring
that would provide for a la carte pricing
of cable channels to replace the packag-
ing and bundling now prevalent. The
issue is complex and has resulted in a
split within the public interest communi-
ty. On die one hand, consumer organiza-
tions welcome the prospect of consumers
being able to choose and pay for only
those channels they want to receive (the
cable industry argues that a la carte
requirements will drive up the cost to
consumers of cable programming, in part
because of a loss of advertising revenues).
Others see a la carle pricing as a threat to
diversity of programming. Also speaking
against the scheme, the Minority and
Media Telecommunications Council
commented in a letter to Congress:
The beauty of multi- channel cable
and satellite is that they offer exposure
to new and previously unfamiliar
channel offerings. Fifteen new multi-
cultural channels — most of which are
minority-controlled — are in various
stages of development or distribution.
Under a la carte, viewers would sel-
dom purchase channels they've had no
chance to see. New channels would need
to build loyalty through word of mouth.,,
Our nation's success as a pluralistic
society depends profoundly on diversity
in the media. New multicultural channels
offer the very best hope of enhancing the
viewpoint, cultural and language diversi-
ty available to the American people. By
locking in the current channel lineup
and locking out new multicultural chan-
nels, a la carte would unintentionally
deprive the next generation of viewers of
a broad spectrum of programming and
opinions.
PEG access would suffer under a
pure a la carte regime, but it may be pos-
sible to strike a middle ground by pro-
viding for a basic package of channels
that would include PEG and perhaps
other nonprofit channels, with a la carte
required for other channels. Even such a
solution might be problematic, however,
because it would isolate PEG from many
other channels and could adversely
affect its funding. The a la carte issue will
pose an interesting and challenging
issue moving forward. The legislation
has been withdrawn because it was not
germane to the bill to which it was pro-
posed to be added as an amendment.
The proposal will no doubt resurface
during the next session of Congress.
Dealing with and trying to manage
the threats brought about by cable oper-
ators such as Comcast, and of converg-
ing technologies and a la carte pricing
will require considerable attention by the
Alliance over the coming years.
Jim Horwood is a partner in the Wash-
ington, D.C. law firm of Spiegel & McDi-
armid where he specializes in telecommuni-
cations, First Amendment and energy law.
He has sewed since 1990 on the Board of
Directors of the Alliance for Community
Media as Special Appointee, legal Affairs.
The WTO Threatens Local Franchises
and National Media Reform? Believe it!
by Lauren-Glenn Davitian
f^i i W SI10U ' ( 1 y° u care about global
■-' ^ trade agreements? As an advo-
/ * cate for public access TV and
community media in Vermont, I've worked
for the past 20 years to ensure that our
state laws provide channels and funding
for free speech and local voices. But it was
not until 1 attended the National Media
Reform Conference in Madison, Wisconsin
in November 2003 that I had any inkling
that our progress in Vermont and the hard
work of Alliance members to negotiate
new franchises and secure the public
interest as part of national media policy is
now threatened by global trade agree-
ments.
This clear and present danger can be
summed up as follows:
At the same time that there is a gen-
uine media reform movement in the Unit-
ed States (demonstrated by the immense
public reaction to the FCC's proposed lift-
ing of media ownership restrictions),
media conglomerates are turning their
attention to international trade forums
where they face less public opposition to
their efforts to define media and commu-
nications issues as entertainment rather
than unique cultural assets that must be
protected through public interest require-
ments forged on national levels through
democratic processes.
By this time next year, under new rules
at the World Trade Organization [WTO),
the requirements of the 1984 Cable Act
(including franchise fees) could be classi-
fied as "restraint of trade" and rendered
null and void through a closed-door
process dominated by trade lawyers repre-
senting major corporare interests. Other
nations that value cultural diversity, local
languages and public subsidies for non-
commercial media will be (and have been)
faced with the same argument and limited
recourse.
The real playing field. What are the
international trade forums where these
decisions are being made? You've heard
the acronyms: NAFTA (North American
Free Trade Agreement), FTAA (Free Trade
Area of the Americas), GATT (General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), and the
WTO (World Trade Organization). The
WTO oversees 23 trade agreements that set
the globai rules for trading goods and serv-
ices in sectors that range from agriculture
to insurance and, of interest, to community
media workers, audio-visual services and
telecommunications.
As of this writing, the WTO is working
in Geneva, with limited public input, to
expand the scope of GATS— the General
Agreement on Trade in Services. WTO
member countries currently are deciding
the new service sectors they want to add
and committing to i —
GATS rules and there-
by removing barriers
that prevent them
from trading "freely"
in these sectors with
other WTO members.
The final version of
GATS rules for these
services will come to
Congress for approval
in late 2004 or early
2005. By agreeing to
the inclusion of audio
visual and telecom-
munications services
to be covered by
GATS, Congress will
open the door to
world trade rules that are able to
supercede the few U.S. national policies
that remain to protect free speech, local
ownership and cultural diversity.
A true story. The implications of GATS'
effect on a country's right and ability to
preserve its national media policies and
maintain its national identity is demon-
strated in the trade dispute between the
United States and Canada over "split run'
magazines and the subsequent rulings by
the World Trade Organization in 1997 that
superceded Canada's own laws.
Canadians have long believed that
Canadian magazines are integral to the
development of their unique culture and
identity. Today, there are 1,400 Canadian
magazines, selling five million copies, gen-
erating $1 billion in revenue each year. The
U.S. exports $700 million worth of maga-
zines into Canada each year — 80 percent
of Canadian newsstand sales — compared
with the $60 million in magazines export-
ed from Canada to the US.
"Split run" magazines, In an effort to
protect Canadian-owned publications
from losing advertising revenue to U.S.
magazines, the Canadian government
banned split run magazines (magazines
with U.S. content that solicit Canadian
advertising for distribution in Canada). In
1995, to the chagrin of U.S. publishers, the
government levied an 80 percent excise tax
on all foreign advertising in Canadian
Following a march on November 20, 2003, police clashed with protesters in
Miami. Police used tear gas, fired rubber bullets into the crowd, used electron-
ic tasers and other less lethal weapons against protesters, injuring protesters
and bystanders. International trade pacts, such as the WTO, or hemispheric like
the FTAA, favor transnational corporations over community control.
magazines. The U.S. government launched
a challenge before the WTO, stating that
while they were supportive of efforts to
promote national identity through cultural
development, they could not "allow Cana-
dian entities to use 'culture' as an excuse to
provide commercial advantages to Canadi-
an products or to evict U.S. firms from the
Canadian market. We will continue to vig-
orously oppose actions of this type that
harm U.S. market Interests, whether taken
by Canada or by other countries." The U.S.
argued that measures to "ensure 'original
content' in magazines sold in
Canada... would be contrary to the object
and purpose" of the WTO.
In March 1997, a WTO panel found the
Canadian measures to be in violation of
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) rules — rules that forbid discrimi-
nation and import restrictions. In 1999, as
FOR MORE INSIGHT
The World Trade Organization (WTO)
You can learn more about the services the WTO
is considering as part of GATS directly:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/seiv_
e.htm
Communications Rights in the
Information Society (CMS)
CRIS is a campaign to ensure that communica-
tion rights are central to the information socie-
ty and to the upcoming World Summit to the
Information Society (WSIS)
http://www.crisinfo.org/ and schock@riseup.nei
Free Press
Learn about global media policy, and take
action to make it move democratic, open, and
accountable to the public interest. This will
lead you to a host of related and helpful
resources.
www.fivepress. net/global and
globaI@freepress. net. Also http:!/www. mediare-
form.net/global/.
United States Trade Representative
Get contact information, at www.ustr.gov
Contact your federal legislators
Use the Alliance's handy-dandy (and powerful)
Legislative Action Center
http://capwiz.com/alliancean/home/
Readable bright lights and clear voices
Folks listed below are deep in the struggle
to protect local rights, including media rights,
from the perils of world trade:
Naomi Klein — Internationally regarded, charm-
ing award-winning and highly- readable Cana-
dian journalist, whose commentary can be
found at:
The Guardian
http://www.guardim.co.uk/Coluninists/Archhie/
0,5673,-991,0.htmt
The Nation
http:llwww.thenationxomldirectorylbioslbio.mh
lml?id=337
Her books, No Logo and Fences and Win-
dows: Dispatches from the Frontline of the Glob-
alization Debate are understandable and essen-
tial reading about the challenges of world trade
and its impact on local communities.
Lori Wallace — "Trade lawyer by training and
an activist by necessity," Ms. Wallach runs Pub-
lic Citizen's Global Trade Watch. She has recent-
ly published, with Patrick Woodall, Who's Trade
Organization? A Comprehensive Guide To the
WTO, another readable and indispensable
guide to th e impact, of the WTO on, among
other issues, media concentration. The book
and otherslt can be ordered at http://www.cili-
zen.org/trade/.
a result of the WTO rulings, Canada
eliminated it's excise taxes on split run
magazines, "harmonized" the postage
rates for domestic and foreign publica-
tions and changed the way they provided
postal subsidies for certain Canadian
magazines and newspapers. (For more
on this story see: "Culture Wars: Canadi-
an Magazines and the Fight Against
American Split Runs" by John Valentine,
http: / /www.ualbetta.ca/ -parkland/post/
01dPost/Vol3_No2/Valentine-maga-
zines.html).
What can — must we do? Clearly, all
of our local and national efforts to pro-
tect free speech, local content, local
ownership and public subsidies for the
use of cable television and other
telecommunications services are at risk.
This year's update of GATS will enable
U.S. media corporations to pry open the
markets of member nations while their
international partners argue that the
public interest provisions of U.S. nation-
al media policy stand as barriers to free
trade.
Think of this as the international ver-
sion of de-regulation. As community
media workers concerned with preserv-
ing public access and funding for free
speech channels, it is essential that we
concern ourselves with the global trade
picture. To protect the public interest we
must join with media activists across the
world and work purposefully toward
global media equity.
Where do we start? There is a growing
momentum within UNESCO for a "con-
vention on cultural diversity" that would
result in a new international
treaty designed to
allow every country
the right to create
cultural policy with-
out, fear of multi-mil
lion dollar trade sanctions.
This convention is being drawn up now
and will come up for debate and a vote
in the fall of 2005. You can join the U.S.
activists who are working as part of the
U.S. chapter of the global campaign for
Communication Rights in the Informa-
tion Society (CRIS). CRIS is linked to an
international network of nongovern-
mental organizations (NGOs) that estab
lished itself in response to the World
Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS) and is now focusing on the Con-
vention on Cultural Diversity
For
organizations working on
globdlism and media issues, visit
wwivxctv,org\WTO_mediapolicy
{www. crisinfo. o rg and
schock@riseup. net).
Diversity. Also, the Free Press organi-
zation has created the Global Communi-
cation Project that is gathering resources
and developing a group of allies to pres-
sure Congress to support the Convention
on Cultural Diversity Find out more at
www.freepress.nel/global or contact Free
Press at global@freepress.net.
AND you can take action closer to
home:
A Spend a little more time to learn
more about global trade and the media
by visiting the links below.
A Work with local activists (on all
sides of the political spectrum) to pro-
duce and cablecast programs on global
trade and media reform that will educate
the members of your community.
A Call the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (www. ustr. gov) and
request info on what media services are
being negotiated as part of the GATS.
A Contact your members of Con-
gress and the Senate today to find out
their position on global trade, and to
educate them on your concerns for pro-
tcctingsupporting national policies that
protect the public interest (www.con-
gress.org).
A Contact your legislators again
when GATS goes to Congress for
approval at the end of this year, and
insist that the trade provisions protect
the existing public interest policies
(www.wto.org).
A Most of all, start to think beyond
the scope of your local access channel
and understand that the
future of community
media depends on
your ability to join
in coalition with
media activists from
tround the country and the
world to protect free speech and demo-
cratic communications!
Special thanks to Chris Slevin of Pub-
lic Citizen, www.citizen.org, and Sasha
Costanza-Chock of the Free Press Global
Communication Project,
www.freepress.net/global.
Lauren-Glenn Davitian
(Dauitian@cctv.org) is executive director of
CCTV's Center for Media and Democracy
based in Burlington, Vermont
(www.cctv.org).
28mm
Property Rights, Federalism
and the Public Rights-Of-Way 1
by Nicholas P. Miller and Holly L. Saurer
• , : - mate communicntions compa-
\_ g nies claim the right to use public
■m-.f^/rights of way for free to conduct
their business. They characterize any
restrictions on that use as "regulation."
They ignore the underlying property
rights of taxpayers and local govern-
ments. They want to avoid paying fair
rent to the local government for the
placement of permanent, stationary
facilities in the streets and roads. Local
governments and their citizens are not
defenseless against this onslaught. Cities
and counties have the same constitution-
al protections as private property owners.
It is time for the companies, and the
courts and legislatures, to think about it
this way.
Public rights-of-way are real estate.
These real estate interests belong to the
community— to the taxpayers. This real
estate is held in trust by the local govern-
ment for the benefit of the community
and should be allocated to its highest and
best use. Taxpayers are intolerant of the
federal government selling offshore oil
leases or Western timberlands for less
than fair market value. In the same man-
ner, public rights-of-way are a limited,
valuable and important community asset
which must be allocated to their highest
and best use. Neither a private company
nor the federal government can use that
property without the owner's permission.
While the exact property rights involved
may vary from street to street and Irani
state to slate, in almost every case the
local government is responsible for the
operational management and preserva-
tion of the rights-of-way. This requires
balancing current against future uses in
the face of multiple, competing demands
for the rights-of-way. The various parlies
who gain benefits from that use should
pay fair value for the resource provided
to them by the taxpayer.
Under our Constitutional system, a
government receives its authority from
the consent of the governed. Thus, no
matter what the form of property owner-
ship, a local government holds property
in trust for its people. This does not pre-
vent a local government from obtaining
fair compensation on behalf of its citi-
zens. A trustee is required to charge rea-
sonable rent, measured by the value of
the property and local custom.
A local community's property rights
over its streets and roads are distinct
from the regulatory authority it may exer-
cise as part of its specific governmental
powers. Thus, even where the federal
government preempts state or local regu-
lation of services, state and local govern-
ments may continue to exercise their
proprietary rights. The federal govern-
ment cannot deprive a state of property
within its own borders without infringing
upon the state's sovereignty. The federal
courts have long recognized that local
governments, as subdivisions of the
states, have the same Fifth Amendment
rights to own and control property as pri-
vate citizens.
The fundamental power to charge a
fee or rent for use of the public rights-of-
way derives from state and local, not fed-
eral, law. For example, the federal Cable
Act does not create the authority to
charge cable franchise fees. States and
local governments hold that power inde-
pendent of any federal grant. The right to
charge franchise fees is based on the
community's right to collect rent for the
use of its property— the public rights-of-
way.
The franchise is the principal means
by which local governments grant private
entities the right fo use public property.
Historically, local and state governments
primarily managed the public rights-of-
way to serve the needs of pedestrians and
vehicular traffic. As utilities began to
place permanent facilities in those rights-
of-way, communities required each utili-
ty to obtain a specific authorization to
use the real estate. This authorization
was classified as a franchise, because it
represented a special, limited and per-
sonal privilege to use public property not
enjoyed by transient right-of-way users.
This special grant is necessary because
no private person can take another's
property, even for a public use, except by
approval from the entity with authority
over the property.
An entity that uses the property of
another normally expects to pay a special
fee commonly called rent. Historically,
however, some rights-of-way rental fees
were waived. Local and state govern-
ments often sought to encourage com-
munications providers to bring services
to their citizens. Even though local com-
munities incurred costs creating the
rights-of-way and maintaining the roads,
local officials believed that the benefits of
communications services were worth it
to taxpayers. Because local governments
wished to encourage these providers,
many imposed minimal fees, though the
deal often involved a commitment to
universal service and an assumption that
service rates to consumers would be reg-
ulated by state or local authorities.
Nonetheless, the principle of payment for
use of property was not abandoned:
many early telephone companies paid a
portion of their proceeds to the govern-
ment as a condition of a franchise.
A franchise is distinct from permits for
work in the rights-of-way. The franchise
authorizes occupancy of public property
and specifies the conditions of occupan-
cy. Franchise conditions may include
location and depth of placement, provi-
sions for traffic safety and disruption,
insurance for injuries to persons or prop-
erty, relocation of facilities for public
improvements, and provisions address-
ing the removal or abandonment in place
of facilities — as well as rental compensa-
tion. By contrast, permits are regulatory-
actions controlling the exact time, place
and manner of construction activities
that are disruptive and dangerous to
other rights-of-way users.
Local governments wear two hats.
They are both regulators and property
owners. Casual observers may confuse
the two functions and interpret a proper-
ty-based action as a regulatory action.
For example, monetary payments to a
government are often presumed to be a
tax. But many payments to a government
are rents, or payments for services or
See Property, page 32
©B29
The Positive Side of PEG Access
Under Municipal Cable Ownership
by Bill Nay
/^Vthe Central Massachusetts town
^gai Shrewsbury, the cable sub-
* y scribers have the best of all possi-
ble worlds: a cable company that is well
run and profitable, and a PEG Access
center that is well run and profitable.
What is the secret to this unbelievable
coincidence?
Municipal ownership.
The following facts are true, believe
me:
▲ Cable rates are 35-40 percent lower
than in all the surrounding communities.
One of the goals of cable management is
to keep rates lower;
▲ Entry-level high-speed cable
modem service is 20 percent cheaper;
▲ Cable has 84 percent penetration,
which translates into customer loyalty as
competition from satellite, and others
approach the community with options;
▲ The town-owned-and-operated ISP
has 40 percent of households, and climb-
ing;
▲ In a recent independent survey, 98
percent of subscribers were "extremely
satisfied" with their cabie/Internet serv-
ices overall;
▲ Beyond the 5-6 percent of gross
revenue that goes to support PEG, cable
contributes another 4-5 percent of gross,
including cable modem monies, to the
town's free cash account each year, in lieu
of taxes;
▲ Cable has built and actively sup-
ported a fiber I-NET since 1995; and
A Among the many community serv-
ice projects that cable has contributed to
are lighting to the ball fields and renova-
tions and additions to the town hall.
Being a PEG access center manager,
working with the town/cable company, is
a dream job. Why? The general manager
of cable actually wants to share resources
with us— for example, MPEG encoding
stations and playback equipment! The
cable company wants to bring PEG along
as it rolls out its new Video On Demand
(VODJ, and has even suggested the idea
of using VOD as a fundraising tool for
community organizations!
3<M
But perhaps the biggest secret to the
superiority of municipal ownership over
corporate can be found in the cable man-
ager's job description: "to manage the
cable company to the benefit of the com-
munity." From the cable manager's view-
point, his own friends, neighbors and
family are the principal "shareholders" of
his "company."
To the general manager and the Light
Commission (a group of appointed resi-
dents that oversee the electric and cable
utilities) the impact of PEG access is
plainly visible. They are reminded of
PEG's impact by their "shareholders"
whenever they go out to the grocery
store, to church, and to social events. So
whether advocating for PEG access or
looking to add a specific channel to the
cable line-up, cable management is
accessible to residents and they have a
real stake in cable's overall success.
A Little History
In 1982, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
stood poised for the unprecedented
growth that the westward expansion of
the Boston-based technology boom was
about to create. It was at this time cable
television was being introduced into the
region. The city put out a request for bids
for the cable franchise. Several bids were
received, including one from the Shrews-
bury Electric Light Plant (SELP), the
agency that had operated the town's
power company since 1909.
Among those with the foresight to
propose the idea of municipally-owned
cable was lames Baker, the general man-
ager of SELP He argued that by running
its own cable system, the town would
generate millions of dollars in revenue
that would otherwise go out to a private
company. The idea showed promise, but
without any local examples to look at,
was not an easy sell. In spite of that, SELP
won the bid and was awarded the cable
franchise by the Board of Selectmen in
1983.
Threatened by a possible trend in
municipally-owned cable, Greater Media
Cable, which held the franchises for
nianv of the communities around
Shrewsbury, started litigation against
municipal ownership in Massachusetts.
But in challenging Baker and Shrewsbury,
Greater Media ran into a tough customer.
About a decade earlier, SELP was part of
a landmark federal case that forced
investor-owned utilities to sell power to
municipally run electrics at wholesale
prices. So Shrewsbury wasn't about to let
a privately-owned cable company try to
shoot down what they knew was in
Shrewsbury's best interests. The legal
action was dropped after the court point-
ed out that state law allows municipal
ownership of cable.
With the legal battles out of the way
Baker still needed to convince the Town
Meeting members in order to float the
bond to start construction. While the idea
of the town potentially receiving added
revenue generated by cable was appeal-
ing to many, the idea of having several
PEG access channels dedicated to the
education and enrichment of the town is
what won over the majority. It was suc-
cessfully argued that municipal owner-
ship would not only bring PEG Access to
Shrewsbury but that the channels would
be part of a community communications
center. This was heady stuff at a time
when cable access, I-NETs and personal
computing were all still in their infancy.
Over the years, the Town of Shrews-
bury, its residents and our PEG access
organization have all benefited greatly
from having municipally-owned cable.
The town wins financially by keeping
cable and cable modem profits in the
city, while the PEG access organization
and the residents benefit from having
direct access to the management and
shareholders of the cable company,
which in fact are their friends and neigh-
bors.
Bill Nay (hiuiy@ci.shrewsbury.ma.us) is
executive director of Shrewsbury Media Con-
nection in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts.
PEG Access & Municipal Officials
How to Nurture an Important Alliance.. .for Community Media
by Randy VanDalsen
see if anv of this sounds famil-
f iar: Your access center has been
..f open for a while. Your organization
hal tried to be active in the community,
geniiig many folks to overcome (heir ini-
tial fears and learn to use the center's
amazing tools. You've got a small, dedi-
cated staff and a board of directors that
cares a lot about the importance of PEG
access in the community. Sure, some pro-
grams explore subjects that veer off into
uncharted waters or aren't as slick as
many would prefer. But overall, you're
proud of the programming and the activ-
ity at the center, and your team is pleased
at the progress so far.
Life is good.
But then something happens (pick
one):
(a) Your city's cable regulator calls to
let you know that due to the local budget
crisis, he will recommend that the access
center's funding should be cut in half.
(b) A call comes from the mayor's
office: "How could you let those people
do that on the air? Are you out of your
mind?"
(c) A council member writes an indig-
nant letter, saying "I don't think the city
should support an irresponsible organi-
zation like yours, which lets people say
such horrible things about our elected
leaders."
(d) The cable company starts a misin-
formation campaign to persuade the City
to drop its support of PEG Access during
franchise renewal negotiations.
(e) All of the above.
What a mess! Now what?
First, understand this: You're not
alone. Most of your peers have faced
challenges like these, and much worse.
No one can say there's a foolproof
method to overcome them. But can any-
thing be done to make them less likely to
happen in the first place, or just lessen
the impact?
Yes.
Welcome to the real world — where
the development of a local "alliance for
community media" of PEG access advo-
cates and municipal officials can only
occur if it is nurtured from Day
One... and the alliance can never be
allowed to end.
Funding cutbacks are a common
source of tension between PEG access
and government. When municipal offi-
cials decide to earmark more franchise
fees to the general fund so government
can make ends meet, PEG access often
suffers dearly. But franchise fees should
never be the only major funding source
for PEG access in the first place! There-
fore, diversified PEG access funding is a
highly desirable outcome of the franchise
renewal process, which you can also con-
sider as an extended version of "Day
One" that I mentioned above. Many com-
munities have recently negotiated fran-
chise agreements with significant PEG
access support from their cable opera-
See PEG ACCeSS, page 32
Some Additional Facts about Municipally-Owned Cable Systems
by Neil Lehto
• The accelerated entry of municipalities into cable television
has been driven primarily by the notion that municipal broad-
band is a logical extension of other municipally-owned utilities,
especially electric systems that provide sophisticated energy
management, metering and other services, tn addition, often
they have had to install fiber optic cables for internal operations,
making it a natural progression to develop broadband networks
as well.
• The deregulation of electric utilities, the spread of which has
slowed across the country since the California energy crisis,
prompted many municipal electric systems to see broadband
systems as a new source of revenue.
• Because they are local, municipally-owned utilities have
credibility with residential and commercial customers. Many
have been in operation for over 100 years, and so they offer sta-
bility in an unstable communications and financial environment.
• Reliable access to high-speed data is critical to a city's goal
of improving education and advancing economic growth.
• Section 613 of the U.S. Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984 expressly prohibits municipal franchise authorities who
own their own cable television systems from exercising any edito-
rial control over the content of public access channels. Such con-
trol must be "exercised through an entity separate from the fran-
chise authority."
* Municipally-owned cable systems have usually created a
local programming board consisting of customer- owners to
decide which programming will be carried on the cable system.
These boards often survey the community to determine what
networks its residents wish to receive. The community is periodi-
cally resurveyed to keep up with changes in network options and
community desires.
• Municipal systems typically do not pay franchise fees. (In
some states there are level playing field laws requiring them to
match what the private cable operator is paying.) However, the
American Public Power Association calculated net payments and
contributions to state and local government and determined that
for the year 2000 (the most recent data), the median amount paid
by public electric power utilities was 5.7 percent of gross operat-
ing revenues. If they offer broadband, public power utilities can
be counted on to provide similar contributions.
Useful websites:
• www.hisUirylink.org/_oulput. cfm?file_id=1738
• www.appanet.nrgiiegidativeregidatoiylbroadbcmdlfactlfact.cfni
• www. crbla w. com/research, htm. I
• www.baUei.comJlibrary-articles.html
31
Property, from page 29
commercial transactions. For example,
buying a book from the Government
Printing Office is a commercial transac-
tion. The payment for the book is not a
tax even though it is paid to govern-
ment.
Confusion between local govern-
ment property rights and regulation is
widespread. Entities that want to vise
the rights-of-way for free tend to
describe right-of-way transactions in
regulatory terms, without acknowledg-
ing the local government's property
rights. But fair-market compensation for
private use of public property is neither
a tax nor a regulatory fee. A communi-
ty's control of its public rights-of-way is
not a regulatory barrier to entry. It is an
owner's right to control use of its prop-
erty.
Local communities must exercise
considerable control over the use of
their public rights-of-way to preserve a
community's quality of life. Recent
developments, however, show a remark-
able willingness by state legislatures and
some courts to deprive local communi-
ties of this control. Acting in the name
of competition, several states have pre-
empted local control over local rights-
of-way. The key difficulty with this posi-
tion: property owners enforce control
over the use of their property tirrough
the power to exclude. If a tenant does
not agree to a property owner's terms
and conditions for property use, the
owner may generally evict, or refuse
entry to the tenant. A local community
that cannot exclude bad actors or free-
loaders from the rights-of-way will be
left defenseless to depredations upon
the community's property rights by
those private users who profit from the
use of that property.
Nicholas P. Miller is a member and Holly
L Saurer is an associate with the law firm of
Miller & Van Eaton, P.L.L.C., with offices in
Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, Cali-
fornia. The firm assists local governments in
achieving the full benefits of the communi-
cations age for their communities.
1 This article is an excerpt of a more exten-
sive piece by the same name written by
Frederick E. Ellrod 111 and Nicholas P.
Miller. It can be found at 26 Seattle Uni-
versity Law Review 475 (Winter 2003).
PEG Access, from page 31
tors, in addition to a five percent fran-
chise fee. Identity those places — and find
out how they did it. Start by looking here:
www.buskegroup.com/html/file_archive.
html
(Note: A small amendment to clarify
the Cable Communications Act of 1984
would help, too. Many people believe
that the Act permits franchise agree-
ments to require only PEG access "capital
support" from cable operators in addi-
tion to franchise fees. A growing number
of communities — when fortified with a
strong sense of purpose — have negotiat-
ed funding for operations, too, over and
above capital support and franchise fees.)
Even before an access center opens
its doors, team-building with municipal
officials should be part of the PEG access
organization's mission. There are several
important elements to this kind of col-
laboration that have been successfully
implemented by staff and board mem-
bers of many nonprofit groups:
A Develop a relationship with elected
municipal officials — before you need
their vote.
> Meer each of them, as early as pos-
sible. Get to know them. Recognize that
they truly are community leaders, chosen
to represent the public.
> Let them get to know you, and why
PEG access is so important.
> Find out which local groups they
admire. Do these groups ever appear on
an access channel?
> Attend events where yo it'll get a
chance to chat with municipal officials.
> Honor the municipal officials. Pre-
sent special awards to them that recog-
nize their support at your annual meet-
ing, local video awards event, etc. (and
send out press releases to inform the
other media about it).
A Make the access center a
respectable, important pan of the fabric
of your community. Share information
about the center's programs and activi-
ties that will most likely appeal to each
municipal official.
A When crisis points arise, defend
your position respectfully but firmly
Appeal to the municipal official's role as a
front line defender of our constitutional
rights. Opponents of PEG access program
content are typically on the wrong side of
the law.
A Take the high road: embrace your
role of the underdog, slicking up for the
rights of local folks with no power.
A Ask influential people to write let-
ters and testify at public hearings on your
behalf. It's important to get groups
involved in PEG access who are associat-
ed with the causes that are most admired
by the elected municipal officials. Their
voices will carry extra weight.
A Anticipate the arguments of your
opponents. Have counterarguments pre-
pared and ready to present.
A Don't forget : If you want to be
taken seriously, you must look and act
the part,
A Be honest. Dishonesty will always
catch up with you.
Finally, here is a useful summary of
tips on how to influence elected officials
that I discovered online, offered by the
Tennessee Nonprofit Association
( www. ncnonprofits. orglfaq_advocacy
.html)
Basic Kindergarten Tips
A Have a relationship before you
need the vote.
A How to have a relationship:
A Be part of an active, visible group.
Send postcards or e-mail.
A Introduce yourself if you see the
elected official somewhere.
A Make a point to be somewhere that
you'll see your elected officials.
Advanced Relationship-Building Tips
A Be a friend.
A Respect the elected official.
A Be helpful to the elected official.
A Be a constituent.
Graduate- Level Tips
A Offer clear, concise, and accurate
information.
A Never threaten.
A Have no permanent friends or per-
manent enemies.
A Know the rules.
A Keep your word.
A Give the task the same dedication
and skill you give to other important
tasks.
Randy VanDalsen is vice-president of
The Buske Group, a public interest cable
consulting firm. He began working in the
PEG access field in 1972, and was one of the
founders of the Alliance for Community
Media (formerly the NFLCP). Contact him at
randy@buskegroup.com
Progress or Dystopia for Community Media?
hat progress has community media made during
the past two decades of deregulated, consolidat-
/ / ed, commercialized, homogenous and banal
media? What opportunities exist for us to limit the impact
of anti- democratic media policy and to secure a place for
local voices, diverse views and the chaotic abundance of
free speech? We asked eight community media leaders
from around the world to name the threats and opportuni-
ties and to point us toward strategies that will help us to
secure media democracy for the next 20 years. Their
answers remind us that our main line of work is communi-
ty development and, if we want to preserve public access to
cable television, we must work in coalition with communi-
ty and independent media advocates across the globe.
LAURA BREEDEN
Laura Breeden has been involved with
applications of the In ternet and new com-
munications technologies in the public sec-
tor (education, community development,
health) since 1983 — including a stint as
the first director of the NTIAs TRAP pro-
gram during the Clinton administration
(now known as TOP). She currently directs
America Connects Consortium (ACC), a
national technical assistance consortium
working with community technology cen-
ters in the US. At the same time Laura
leads the Community Technology Practice
at Educational Development Corporation
in Massachusetts.
What do you think are the "big picture"
threats facing community media?
The big threats to community media
are media consolidation and commercial-
ization (which are closely linked), com-
pounded by the current FCC policies.
More threats? The "dumbing down" of
civic life and the overall degradation of
public discourse, particularly, 1 regret to
say, since the advent of cable television.
Wliat can citizens and leaders in the
community media movement do to com-
bat these threats?
Advocate for increased funding and
other support (in-kind donations, tax
breaks, visibility, legitimacy) for commu-
nity media.
Dissolve the barriers between com-
munity cable access, community technol-
ogy centers, and community information
networks.
Link media deregulation to increased
public investment in community media.
Use the web to share products, ideas,
and tools, and to organize (a la
MoveOn.org). Exponentially increases the
power of relatively small, specialized, and
widely dispersed groups.
Make better media, and engage new
audiences in producing it.
Do you ha ve any other comments?
Comfort the afflicted, and afflict the
comfortable.
DR. MYRIA GEORGIOU
Myria Georgian (m.georgiou@leeds. ac.uk)
is based in the United Kingdom, at the
Institute of Communication Studies at the
University of Leeds. Through her academic
studies she raises awareness among policy
makers and the academic community
about community media and their ability
to expand participation and positive rep-
resentations, especially among marginal-
ized and excluded populations. Her study
of media consumption and the develop-
ment of transnational communication
networks will be integrated in her forth-
coming book Diaspora, Identity and the
Media.
Define community media.
Community media are nonprofit
organizations that use all differen t kinds
of communication technologies (e.g. tele-
vision, radio, the Internet, press) in
addressing particular audiences that are
usually (1) concentrated in particular
locales; (2) marginalized and excluded
from mainstream media; (3) have particu-
lar interests and agendas promoting par-
ticipation and inclusion in civic, political
and other community projects.
Has community media made progress
over the past 25 years?
Community media have grown in
numbers and have expanded their reach,
especially with the use of new technolo-
gies such as the Internet and other digital
media, which set an end to the frequency
scarcity. Community media and other cit-
izen and community movements have
also raised the profile and the political
significance of community projects,
resulting policies that promote and sup-
port such projecrs. However, the success
of community media is not guaranteed by
their growing numbers and extended
reach — this does not guarantee real diver-
sity. In parallel to these phenomena, there
is a growing commercialization of media
overall and a growing domination of com-
mercial media and the major broadcast-
ing players. The major commercial media
players, which sets rules in terms of agen-
da-setting, aesthetics and scheduling
threaten media that have alternative
agendas and which cannot compete on a
commercial level.
How can we mobilize?
Community media have a responsibil-
ity to continue setting alternative agendas
and giving space to voices which are
excluded from the mainstream, even if
they are marginalized in the broader
mediascapes. Community media leaders
can:
Lobby for more effective policy in
terms of (1) community media not being
given marginal, 'dead' frequencies and
time slots in broadcasting systems; and
(2) subsidies;
Develop cross-media collaboration
with some commercial media, which will
make community media projects more
visible;
Build upon successful projects or
event coverage by community media by
actively promoting their role in the public
sphere; and,
Campaign for the democratic signifi-
cance of expression and free speech at a
time when, in the U.S. in particular, major
media organizations fail to act as watch-
dogs to the government.
Community media are important for
democracy, free speech and civil partici-
pation on local, national and global levels.
Community media will never be able to
compete with big commercial players and
will always depend on smaller number of
audiences and localized success. The
democratic significance of community
media and the responsibility of societies
in keeping them alive and active should
be in the heart of campaigns for their
promotion and support.
FRED JOHNSON
As a documentary producer, advocate,
academic, founder and administrator,
Fred Johnson {fphnson@mwg.org) lias
been working in community and inde-
pendent media since 1974. As a principal
of Media Working Group, Inc., Fred has
started a variety of community-based
media projects and consulted extensively
in the United States and. United Kingdom.
Fie currently co-directs the Community
Media and Technology Program at. the
University of Massachusetts in Boston.
Define community media.
The only kind of "community media"
I am interested in these days is media
that is created in democratic relation-
ships with people. That can be content
making and/ or distribution systems that
allow people to find their own voice in the
form of media expressions they create
themselves, or, it can and often does
mean making media with people rather
than about them.
What progress have we made?
Huge progress! In many communities,
community media centers are now firmly
at the center of the lives of their commu-
nities — and this is true of both large and
small communities. Of all the "alternative
media" experiments in media social
change that arose from the 60s and 70s,
community media in the form of cable
access has, by comparison, stabilized suc-
cessfully in a significant number of com-
munities in the U.S. By stable, 1 mean
people are getting paid a living wage, with
health benefits etc., to create some kind
of noncommercial media in their com-
munities. And, again, a significant num-
ber of those centers are now multi-pur-
pose access, production and education
centers that are critical to the culture of
their community. So, even though I can
come up with a number of criticisms of
the way cable access functions, as well as
non-cable access community media cen-
ters, 1 still understand that overall this is
enormous progress.
Of course we all know that media con-
centration and de-regulation has gotten
worse. So it is easy to feel unsuccessful.
34§1I
But it turns out that community media is
not a solution to the problem of a hyper-
commercialized mass media, as many
thought, but the articulation of an entire-
ly new form of media.
Describe the threats that we face.
The "big picture" is that if we do not
find some way of getting democratic con-
trol of this country's extremely de-regu-
lated media policy — which means politi-
cal transformation and media transfor-
mation, not mere reform — then ultimate-
ly all forms of public media will be done
away with or corrupted beyond recogni-
tion. This is going to be very hard political
work; it has to be part of a larger move-
ment to make the country more demo-
cratic. But if you are not working on that
you are backing up.
But 1 think the biggest specific threat
public access faces is philosophical. The
media system has changed fundamental-
ly, and with it the media culture. Cable
access activists are going to have to
change in order to survive or be relevant
in this new interactive, cross platform,
flash-animated environment. Access
must find ways of being on the cutting
edge of media content creation and dis-
tribution systems [like wireless etc]. That
will mean developing policies, program-
ming formats and organizational struc-
tures that go far beyond the simple con-
tent neutral, First Amendment forum
strategies most organizations now
deploying to justify their existence.
Wiatcan we do?
Start working everyday on demo-
cratic media transformation. Example,
the GRIID affiliate at the Community
Media Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
(www.griid.org).
▲ Re-think your community and fig-
ure out what you have to contribute to
your the economic and community
development agenda. This will strengthen
your ability to be a speaker as well as
facilitator in your communities' political
culture. Examples can be found in
Asheville, North Carolina, Lowell, Massa-
chusetts (www.ltc.org) and Burlington,
Vermont (www.cctv.org).
A Keep in mind that content neutral
programming policies and any form of
community media that do not formally
incorporate progressive political values
i into their practices are essentially subsi-
dizing the status quo in their communi-
ties. When you think about making these
kinds of changes in public access, the
ramifications are formidable. Taking this
on will un bundle the class coalitions we
have put in place and force us to re-think
and re-negotiate relationships with gov-
ernment and out communities; and 1 am
sure many in public access right now
would disagree or have no stomach for it.
But if you want to continue to enjoy the
support of politically progressive con-
stituencies (which when it gets right
down to it are the only people who really
support public access) then we have to
start working on change. Otherwise I can
think of too many other valuable uses
from this public money from the fran-
chise or Lax.es.
NICHOLAS JOHNSON
Nicholas Johnson was an FCC comm is-
sioner from 1966-73. Fie currently resides
in Iowa City, Iowa.
It was more than 25 years ago that
George Stoney and Red Burns introduced
me to the idea, and potential, of "com-
munity media," the notion that "mass
media" could be media created by the
masses, not just corporate media used to
program the masses. They were suffi-
ciently persuasive that I made the provi-
sion of "community access" cable chan-
nels a primary goal of my seven-year
term as an FCC Commissioner.
Although the Supreme Court ulti-
mately thought otherwise, in Midwest
Video II, enough years had gone by, and
enough new franchises had been written,
that cable access had been established.
When i finally made my way from Wash-
ington back to my hometown in Iowa
City in 1980, 1 found a vibrant communi-
ty media movement underway, with the
local leadership of individuals like Karen
Kalergis, Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau and
Rene Paine, among a great many other
talented and devoted people. I took
Drew's video training course, and ulti-
mately served on his Iowa City Broad-
band and Telecommunications Commis-
sion for two terms.
While similar efforts around the
country continue to grow and inspire,
they also continue to be threatened from
a variety of directions, among them the
corporate cable drive to profit maximize
and the reductions in the funding of the
public sector generally. (As an aide to
President Bush once put it, "I don't want
to do away with government all together.
I just want to make it small enough that I
can drown it in a bathtub,")
But, alas, as Pogo once observed, "We
have found the enemy and he is us,"
Threats can come from within as weU as
from without,
▲ In our necessary and commend-
able efforts to expand free speech we
sometimes abandon more common
sense than is consistent with its preserva-
tion.
A There is a natural human tendency
to want to preserve and protect one's
control of whatever objects or institu-
tions are most dear. When applied to
community media this common inclina-
tion is not always consistent with the
need of community media to reach out,
to expand the base, to bring in new pro-
ducers, to involve a fuller range of com-
munity institutions and individuals than
those with whom one is most comfort-
able. Increased participation creates the
risk that, in the process, one may lose
one's former comfort and control of an
in-group.
But these are trivial "threats" — or at
least threats well within the possibility of
our control. Community media has made
much progress. It has much more poten-
tial still as new technologies (such as
improved, smaller cameras, and distribu-
tion systems like the Internet) become
available. And never in our nation's histo-
ry has it been more essential to "life, lib-
erty and the pursuit of happiness" (to
quote a line).
MARK LLOYD
Mark Lloyd (mark.lloyd@comcast.net) is
an award winning journalist, communi-
cations lawyer and executive director of
the Civil Rights Telecommunications
Forum — a project created to bring civil
rights principles and advocacy to the com-
munications policy debate. He is currently
a Martin Luther King, Jr. Visiting Professor
at MIT and is completing a new book on
the history of broadcasting.
Has community media made progress
over the past 25 years?
Although local associations have been
engaged in supporting expression
through newspapers and public soap
boxes since the dawn of the U.S. repub-
lic, a strong argument can be made that
the modern community media move-
ment began in the late 1960s with the
Johnson Administration's promotion of
"wired cities." While there are important
successes, the so-called "Blue Sky" hopes
for public access cable have been largely
dashed over the past 25 years. The rea-
sons are many and varied: federally
enforced limits on the local cable fran-
chisee contributions to public access
operations, poor promotion, uneven
quality, and a wide range of other prob-
lems. Community radio continues to be a
source of expression for local groups,
despite setbacks in the drive to free up
more of the public airwaves for low-
power radio. Many community groups,
even in low-income and subsidized
housing, have turned to websites as an
avenue of local expression.
If community media has not been all
that it could be, the powerful need for
expression outside of either government
or corporate constraints continues to
push community media toward different
outlets and new strategies.
What are the threats facing community
media?
Community media's major threat is
marginalization. Local expression is over-
powered in a public arena increasingly
cluttered and fragmented. A media com-
pany such as Viacom/Infinity /CBS/Para-
mount or Fox/NY Post/Direct-TV has a
much better chance of reaching audi-
ences (whether on radio, cable, or the
Internet) because they own so-many
powerful channels and are able to cross-
promote. In the absence of stronger ties
to the community and robust funding,
community media will be unseen and
unheard in the buzzing banality of the
ordinary citizen's media environment.
To the extent that community media
receives any funding from government or
corporations, the justification for that
funding will continue to be questioned
by the Bush Administration. While public
outcry was able to save funding for com-
munity technology centers and NTIA
grants, the redefinition of broadband
service as an "information" rather than a
"telecommunications" service, has cost
community media dearly, particularly in
the loss of revenue to public access oper-
ations. If the situation was not perfect
there should be little doubt that things
were better when the FCC was led by
Commissioner's Hundt and Kennard. If
this administration is allowed to continue
in office, the prospects for community
media will get worse.
Wiiat can we do?
Elect a new president and put media
justice on the public agenda. It is a long-
term battle, but we must begin to win
some short-term victories!
SEAN SIOCHRU
Sean O'Siochru (sean@nexus.ie) is the
founder and chair of the 11-year-old Com-
munity Media Network (CMN) in Ireland
(www.cmn.ie) and founding chair of
Dublin Community Television (DCTV,
www.activelink.ie/cmf/) scheduled to
launch in 2005. He serves as the spokesper-
son for the CRIS Campaign Internationa!
(www.crisinfo.org), which focuses on glob-
al communication rights and writes fre-
quently on international media and com-
munication issues.
Describe the progress you have made in
community media in Ireland,
Speaking for Ireland, the community
radio sector is now relatively mature. One
of the best stations, NEAR-FM, is involved
with the effort to start community' televi-
sion in Dublin. This has been a long
struggle, with Community Media Network
(CMN) at the forefront. The concept of
community television, if it exists at all in
the public mind, is gleaned from occa-
sional disparaging references in main-
stream TV to programs with naked pre-
senters, or soap-box rants etc. — the usual
tittle-tattle. At best, people imagine it as
giving cameras to private individuals to
record their day, a popular format for
short films some time ago. Nevertheless,
we accept that it is our job to demon-
strate what it is about in reality — we have
to prove it works by actually doing It
Several years of lobbying have deliv-
ered some concrete gains:
Community Media as the "third pil-
lar": A Government Commission on pub-
lic service media finally recognized com-
munity media as an important 'third pil-
lar'. At Dublin Community Television, we
view community media as distinct from
public service and commercial — but also
from a purely access or 'free speech'
model of community media. We are
attempting to define community televi-
sion within the tradition of community
development, which has a strong history
in the past couple of decades in Ireland.
The Broadcasting Act of 2001 gave legal
recognition to the concept of community
television (a 'community contract to pro-
vide programmes'), setting out conditions
for applying for a license and, at the same
time, includes a 'must carry' obligation
©Ii35
on cable operators.
Funding Streams: It also looks like we
will secure a tiny proportion of the Televi-
sion License fee (a realistic 150 euros per
household in Ireland) to fund programs
for community TV and radio, perhaps
totaling a couple of million euro a year.
But there is no funding at all for capital or
current costs, and even the program
funds might end up outside the stations
themselves— so that is an area of current
lobbying. Dublin, and perhaps Cork, are
ready to apply to the new round of licens-
es — though we have no idea where we
will get the money even to fund our appli-
cation — let alone launch the station. All
contributions are welcome!
Wliat threats do you face ?
It is not really possible to divorce
threats to community media from the
evaluation of the overall media environ-
ment Community media may be seen as
one element in a global struggle to
democratize the media, and a very practi-
cal one that offers a partial alternative.
Other elements include: campaigns to
halt efforts within the World Trade Orga-
nization (WTO) and elsewhere to subject
all media to the laws of the market and
capital (and hence eliminate public serv-
ice media, for instance); opposition to
concentration of media ownership
nationally and internationally; and efforts
to reduce the power of media barons.
These, and more, are threats to all our
efforts to democratize media.
The CR1S Campaign
(www.crisinfo.org) sees these matters in a
broader context still, arguing that 'com-
munication rights' must be tackled and
supported as a whole. In addition to
media per se, these would include public
domain and the commons, copyright,
civil rights in cyberspace etc. — the entire
means by which we generate and com-
municate knowledge, and complete the
social communicative process, which is
rapidly being privatized with potentially
frightening consequences.
What can we do?
In Ireland, we have always conscious-
ly tried to link together the various alter-
native and community media efforts, and
to build bridges with broader activists
and the community and voluntary sector
(as it is known as here). This involves
activities at several levels.
For instance, in DCTX we have spent
almost two years running seminars, work-
36©fK
shops, information sessions to build an
understanding of the concept among pro-
gressive groups here, especially at grass-
roots and community level. This is not
going to yield the money but it gets us
something more valuable— a genuine
base of support that understands what we
are trying to achieve and how we can help
them achieve their goals. In the long term
it. builds us a political base that should be
able to ward off die threat of incorpora-
tion on one side, and of conservative
efforts to rein us in on the other,
At the same time, we are building
bridges with other media and activists,
Around May Day this year, CMN in col-
laboration IndyMedia in Ireland
(www.indytnedia.ie) are running a week-
long scries of media workshops, radical
films and other activities involving every
aspect of alternative and community
media. This is the kind of coalition build-
ing we hope will help us to move forward
and guard against threats.
KARI PETERSON
Kari Peterson (kapeters@dctv.davis.ca. us)
has been the executive director of Davis
Community Television in Davis, California
since 1986. She has sewed on the Alliance
for Community Media regional and
national boards and remains an outspo-
ken advocate for public access and com-
munity media.
WJiat progress have we made?
We've learned a lot in two decades.
During my career, there have been radical
shifts in thinking — away from television
production as an end and toward media
as a process and as a community-build-
ing tool. Today we talk about media litera-
cy, public discourse and social priorities.
This has altered considerably the kinds of
programs and services we offer and slow-
ly it's leading to a shift in the way our
community thinks about us. What was of
little relevance to peoples' lives, is now
becoming real and relevant.
In our community, more resources
will soon be available — low power radio,
INF.T and additional community uses of
the Internet. Kverywhere, equipment is
improving, making media and communi-
cation more readily accessible and con-
sumable. In order to use these resources
for a useful end community media can
offer a resource and a process that a)
engages and brings people together; b)
provides an outlet for relevant and useful
content not available elsewhere; c) pro-
motes media literacy; and d) encourages
and supports expression. These are good
ideas worth preserving.
What are the threats facing community
media?
Fundamentally, greed and power are
at the root of society's dysfunction and
drives the telecommunications industry
toward lousy public policy. Bad public
policy has led to a weak legislative and
regulatory framework for community
media. As a result, community media is
marginalized and threatened.
In the trenches, the biggest threat we
face is the crisis of relevance. We lack a
critical mass of participants and viewers.
With full and busy lives, people generally
don't make the time for community
media. And even if they philosophically
embrace our work and consider it an
essential resource, they don't, in signifi-
cant numbers, engage it. In order to truly
achieve our mission — to use media to
enhance community life — we have to fig-
ure out more effective ways to engage
people in the making and consuming of
community media.
How can we combat these threats?
Communication must be viewed as a
fundamental element of our civic infra-
structure. Weaving media into the basic
fabric of community life means incorpo-
rating communication wherever possible
into the activities, tasks and challenges of
daily life. It means always being part of
the conversation.
Partnerships: In our campaign for rel-
evance, we must link up with those who
need us — furthering the causes of local
people, organizations and institutions
benefits us all. To be good at this, we have
to be entrepreneurial and seize these
opportunities— we can't wait for folks to
come to us.
One-Stop Shopping: Community
media is a tool box — a concept that is
readily understood by people and organi-
zations who may be tentative about using
media. In Davis, we've been consolidating
our various community media resources
under a single roof and thinking of our-
selves as a "one stop shop." I've been talk-
ing a lot lately about community uses of
television, radio and the Internet — three
distinct media tools at our disposal, each
with its own set of services, training and
advantages. This makes it easier for non-
profit organizations able to pick from a
suite of services that address their com-
munication and media needs.
Community Center: Together with com-
munity media partners, the school district,
city, library and a neighborhood associa-
tion, DCTV is now working with a multitude
of community organizations to develop a
multi-use community center and we have
found this to be a wildly beneficial process.
Our common goal is a high energy commu-
nity center that brings people together syn-
ergistically through meeting spaces, gather-
ing spaces, art, music, food, books. ..and,
yes, media — television, radio and a comput-
er lab. A center where community happens
and media is a tool. DCTV is no longer just a
TV station, not just a video box.
I believe that to the extent our neighbors
see media as a fundamental part of the their
community, we will achieve relevance and
overcome the threats that face us all.
MARTHA WALLNER
For the past 20 years, Martha Wallner
(marthaw@lmi.net) has been building com-
munity media projects and advocating for
policies that support community media. She
was a founder and principal of Deep Dish
TV and, until recently, served as executive
director of Berkeley Community Media in
California. She is currently working as an
active member of Media Alliance
(www.media-alliance.org ) to stop the FCC
from abolishing ownership limits and she is
organizing for franchise renewal in San
Francisco.
Has community media made progress over
the past 25 years?
In this time, community media organi-
zations have grown stronger and more
sophisticated. "Professionalization" of the
movement has ils pitfalls, but it has also
contributed to our ability to sustain and
expand the work and defend it from attack. I
think die borders between various subcul-
tures in community media are fading and
this too, contributes to our strength and vis-
ibility.
What "big picture" threats face community
media?
The biggest threat to community media
is consolidation and behind this, the drive
internationally, led by the U.S., to promote
policies that eviscerate al I forms of commu-
nity control, bankrupt government at the
city, state atid federal levels and push a neo-
liberal "free market" framework to make die
world safe and lucrative for a few multi-
national corporations to dominate all
spheres of life. That may sound like a
mouthful but that is the "big picture" as I
see it.
How we, community media folks, see
ourselves is another very serious threat. We
can't let these very real power dynamics
blind us to the fact that we represent, in
fact, the majority, and with hard work, we
can build another kind of power, a power
great enough to transform our communities
and our country, from one based on greed
and competition to one based on human
rights, responsibility to the environment
and cooperation!
I'm concerned that community media
organizations, particularly public access
organizations, don't intentionally channel
their resources in a way that can support
the most threatened members in their com-
munities—poor and low-income people,
deployed troops, the disabled, seniors and
immigrants targeted by the so-called war on
terrorism. This ultimately weakens access
too, because access' strength rests on the
strength of its community.
Wliat can community media workers and
volunteers do?
Organize, organize, organize! Build
advocacy in to all of your work. Educate
yourself, your staff, your board, your mem-
bers, your elected officials. Cut 25 percent of
your programmatic activity and replace it
with advocacy activity. If you don't know
how, get help, find people to train you and
your constituents in organizing skills, and
hook up with the burgeoning media activist
movement. Use the media resources you
have at your disposal to do advocacy. If you
are concerned about doing direct advocacy,
support the work of others who are doing it
by providing them with resources.
The FCC campaign over the past two
years was a watershed in coalition building,
spawning new relationships across con-
stituencies and across media. But it also
showed us that we have to build the capaci-
ty to organize proactively and to do this, I
think, that we have to pull back a little from
the reactive campaigns and focus on devel-
oping a more sustainable advocacy infra-
structure that can build power at the grass-
roots. Campaigns focused on these larger
fundamental policy issues could potentially
draw the broad support that would actually
needed to transform the system — on a fed-
eral and municipal level. We have to see the
links between all the social justice issues,
and build solidarity between the move-
ments that are fighting on the multiple
fronts of this broad attack.
The Common
They hang the man
and flog the woman
That steal the goose from
off the common,
But let the greater
villain loose
That steals the common
from the goose.
- English folk poem,
ca. 1764
Threats, from page 19
modem service in gross revenues. As
a part of the deal under which recent
state legislation was adopted, com-
munities cannot enforce the payment
of franchise fees on cable modem
service, regardless of the outcome of
the 9th Circuit litigation. So the loss
of cable modem revenues from PEG
operations is permanent here."
"Large cable [MSO X] has effec-
tively co-opted the regulators and
policymakers through tight network
of relationships between its iaw firm
and the legislative and regulatory
agencies. MSO X actually employs the
wife of the cable regulator — they skirt
ethics laws by hiring her through
their telecom subsidiary, Meanwhile,
the cable regulator has given away
major components of PEG access
resources - narrowing definition of
"Gross Revenues," divesting channels
and capping PEG benefits. Smaller,
under-funded rural providers are suf-
fering the most."
"One of our villages signed over
the "public right-of-way" to [Cable
Operatorl in exchange for the build-
ing of a tech center. I can't empha-
size the negative impact that may
have for the future of that village in
terms of communicating in the 21st
Century and beyond."
Greg Epter Wood, chair of the
Alliance's Public Policy Committee, may
be contacted at CregEW@Sover.net.
©K37
Leading in a Crisis: A Case Study
of Chicago's CAN TV and RCN
by Margie Nicholson
Ve you ready to lead your organi-
/ zation through a crisis? Here's the
' I- story of how access and commu-
nity leaders in Chicago fought fo save
their access funding when a local cable
operator defaulted on ils payments.
In January 2002 Chicago's CAN TV
faced the greatest challenge in its 20-year
history. One of the city's local cable oper-
ators, RCN, defaulted on a $645,000 pay-
ment to the access corporation. Executive
director Barbara Popovic knew that the
other cable operators serving the city
were watching closely to see if the city
council and the cable commission would
allow RCN to renege on its obligations. If
RCN were allowed to shirk its responsibil-
ities, the other cable operators were likely
to ask for similar concessions.
Things looked bad at the beginning.
The company had no intention of paying
and the cable commissioner appeared
unwilling to pressure RCN, saying that
CAN TV had enough money in the bank
to tide itself over.
Popovic and CAN TV
Board members, staff,
and supporters imme-
diately launched a
campaign to educate
the public, press and
politicians about the
value of public access
and the need to collect
the payment in full.
Here's the story of the
strategies they used
and the lessons they
operational cable channels reaching
broad and diverse audiences in the com-
munity; and contacts in the media who
understood the issues and were willing to
present CAN TV's perspective.
Over the past 20 years, CAN TV has
provided thousands of residents with
access to training, equipment and
channels and has provided cus-
tomized outreach, training, channels
and services for nonprofit organiza-
tions. Live call-in programs, address-
ing issues such as domestic violence
HIV- AIDS, immigration, employ-
ment, and education, regularly
brought community leaders to the
studio and reminded them of the
value of access TV.
CAN TV crews have regularly cov
ered election debates, labor protests,
arts performances, town hall meet-
ings, and all activities relating to
media reform. Activists and viewers
are aware of this coverage and aware of
the fact that it wouldn't take place with-
out CAN TV's dedication to the non-
profit and social justice communities.
CAN TV has built strong rela-
tionships with local political leaders.
Each week an alderman is invited to
appear on CAN TV's live, call-in Polit-
ical Forum program, which is hosted
by members of CAN TV's board.
Thanks to their personal experience
of the value of access and the oppor-
tunity to meet regularly with access
eaders, Chicago's City Council mem-
bers vigorously supported CAN TV
during the struggle with RCN. The
while the campaign absorbed their atten-
tion. A strategic response team of staff
members met weekly to quickly address
issues and challenges. Rather than
dwelling on the problem, the staff kept
focused on — and became a part of— the
solution. "1 was really heartened by the
learned in responding Sl^ii d2L^ J City of Cnica g°' s vice Ma y° r > Alder -
man Bernard Stone, championed
CAN TV's cause throughout the default.
Resolutions supporting CAN TV were
signed by 25 Aldermen, five Chicago
Finance Committee hearings were held
on the default, and not one of the 50
Aldermen sided with RCN.
Strategic Organization. Responding
to this type of crisis required an enor-
mous amount of time and effort. One of
the first priorities for CAN TV manage-
ment was to help the staff decide which
duties could be postponed or put aside
to this threat.
Preparation. Despite the fact that the
RCN default was unexpected, CAN TV
was prepared for the battle. The key ele-
ments were in place: legislators who
understood the value of access television;
board members who were willing to com-
mit their time, contacts and resources;
hundreds of producers and nonprofit
organizations who had benefited from
their use of access channels and equip-
ment; a smart and dedicated staff who
made this campaign a priority; five fully
38M
CAN TV Executive Director Barbara Popovic testifies on the
RCN default at the May 22, 2002 City of Chicago Finance Com-
mittee meeting.
fighting spirit of our staff," Popovic says.
"People were incredibly supportive. Their
morale was great."
Throughout the campaign CAN TV
staff distributed flyers and mounted a
massive calling effort to contact con-
stituents and alert them to meetings. In
the process, staff members developed a
new advocacy database that allowed
them to rapidly track the outcome of calls
being made by staff in all of the depart-
ments, noting who would write letters,
attend events, etc. Most importantly, fol-
low-up calls were made to everyone who
committed to attend events or take other
specific actions.
Crucial to making its case were CAN
TV's solid systems for tracking users, sup-
porters, programs, and finances. When
cable operators, cable commissioners, or
aldermen asked for data, statistics, sup-
port letters, financial statements, or his-
torical documents, the information was
quickly found and delivered.
Communication. Popovic made com-
munications a priority during the eight-
month campaign. She was in regular con-
tact with political leaders, board mem-
bers, reporters, and access users, strategi-
cally framing and fine-tuning the mes-
sage as the situation evolved.
Political leaders, including Chicago Aldermen and state and fed-
eral representatives, were sent letters informing them of the default.
Follow-up calls were made to solicit support and politicians
responded by passing multiple resolutions in support of CAN TV in
the Chicago City Council and Illinois State Legislature.
Popovic increased communications with the CAN TV board
through emailed updates and calls. Board members rallied in
response to the threat. They actively engaged in advocacy efforts and
stepped up the pace of relevant committee meetings to stay abreast
of any changes and to follow up on advocacy assignments.
When the crisis hit, Popovic activated her contacts in the media,
providing them with press kits, background information and regular
updates. The Chicago Tribune, Chicago's largest daily newspaper, fol-
lowed the story, and the locai ABC affiliate, WLS-TV, and three local
radio stations provided coverage. All together there were 27 articles
in the Chicago press and two articles in the national press,
CAN TV has been, for several years, proactive in developing a
marketing and public relations campaign. The organization's "eye"
logo and slogan (Sometimes TV Isn't the Problem... It's the Solution]
have been plastered around the city on billboards and bus posters
and highlighted on the channels and promotional materials for
many years. During the struggle with RCN, CAN TV built on its
"branding" with new informational materials featuring constituents
providing testimonials about the value of CAN TV. Mass mailings
were used to update CAN TV's constituency on the status of the
default, along with instructions about how they could help.
Using its own communications media was an important part of
CAN TV's communications strategy. The organization gave the issue
maximum exposure on its channels; running PSAs, cablecasting
hearings and meetings, and discussing the issue on weekly political
and community programs. Campaign updates, action alerts and
press coverage were regularly provided on the website at
wwwxantu.org/rcn.
Mobilization. Popovic realized that mobilizing constituents to
speak and lobby on behalf of the access corporation would be a criti-
cal campaign srrategy. When the crisis erupted, CAN TV staff and sup-
porters immediately organized a letter-writing campaign, generating
more than 150 letters to RCN's CEO and Mayor Richard J. Daley. Thir-
ty aldermen received letters from their constituents, and many alder-
men received personal visits from concerned constituents.
As a result, of the outreach campaign, residents came out in large
numbers for bearings about the default. More than 400 residents
attended finance Committee hearings and 100 attended Cable Com-
mission hearings with 51 offering testimony in favor of CAN TV. Over-
all nearly 700 residents look direct action to support the access corpo-
ration.
Results. On September 3, 2002, RCN paid CAN TV in full with
interest. The people, politicians and press of Chicago had sent the
company a clear message, which was finally heard by corporate lead-
ers just hours before the City Council was to vote on daily fines for
the company's default.
The celebration was sweet, but short-lived. In January 2004 RCN
defaulted on an annual payment to CAN TV with company execu-
tives claiming that the company didn't have the financial stability to
fulfill its obligations to the city and community. Once again, Popovic
and her determined board, staff and supporters have been putting
aside their daily concerns to face this threat to survival.
In Case of Crisis, Break Glass!
FIRST STEPS:
Regulatory
* Do your homework
• Inform authorities
CAN TV's
Checklist
for Action
Legal
• Review contractual obligations
• Activate and brief counsel
Relating to the Company
• Explore ail possible remedies
• Keep the ball in their court
• Timing zero tolerance for stalling
• Document everything
NE XT STEPS:
Political/Advocacy
• Do asset mapping: community allies, resources
• Recruit a key political ally as your champion
Get organized
• Strategize: establish priorities, make room
for advocacy in work day
• Set up and educate planning team; set up tracking
system; set up timeline, establish regular strategic
meetings and designate tasks
Communications
• Frame the issue
• Prepare informational materials; fact sheet,website,
press packets, sample letters
• Establish a press list
• Identify key spokesperson(s)
MOBILIZE:
Call to action
• Letter-writing campaign
• Mass attendance at meetings /hearings
Political work
• Person to person contact: meetings with public officials
• Resolutions (local, state, federal)
Media
• Tape and televise meetings/hearings
• PSA campaign
■ Radio appearances
• Local television shows
• Brief and regularly update print press
Legal Actions
• Negotiations /Set tlement
• Fines
■ Lawsuit
THE AFTERMATH:
Margie Nicholson leaches in the Senior Seminar Program at Columbia
College Chicago, and can be reached at
mnicholson@colum.edu.
Legal/Regulatory
• Tie up loose ends
• Act on lessons learned
Relationships
• Rebuild
• Plan for transition
• Acknowledge and thank supporters
• Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
1139
Invoking the Multiplier Effect: How to
Quantify Your Value to the Community
by Sam Behrend
/Access managers are faced with the challenge of justifying
: J' their organization's existence to elected officials, decision
|, makers and flinders. This may be done through painting
the big picture, telling anecdotal stories and by quantifying com-
munity impact. All are necessary and all are difficult. One of the
least difficult, yet most effective tools in the persuasion game is
placing dollar values on the services your organization delivers to
its community and then comparing that total to the funds
received to fuel those services.
At Access Tucson we started this reporting 15 years ago in our
annual report to the City of Tucson. In figure I below we have list-
ed the performance metrics that we have historically collected.
Some of them, like "number of studio hours provided" are easily
valued by applying the cost of renting a similar studio in Tucson.
Some, like "number of active members" are derived by calculating
or estimating the cost to mail election materials and communi-
cate with the membership. The value of the channel time as
expressed in the metric "total number of hours cablecast" is also
somewhat difficult to determine. One formula to derive the value
of a PEG channel is based on a statement filed by Comcast in its
lawsuit in San Jose, CA last year. That calculation is $12.71 per
subscriber per year per channel. Other metrics, such as "number
of organizations served" are difficult to quantify separate and
apart from the services delivered to those organizations. For those
metrics that have no dollar unit cost listed, I would suggest that
the value of these things is, as the TV commercial says, priceless.
Once a grand total value of services to the community is cal-
Access Tucson's Value of Services Compared to City Funding
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
HOQO.000
S3.Q0i0.QOD
$1,000,000
SO
figure 2
culated, a comparison to public or cable funding can be made.
This is expressed as figure 2 above. This can become the basis of
a powerful argument made to elected officials showing how a
portion of the revenue received from the cable franchisee is mul-
tiplied (in our example nearly fivefold!) in direct services back to
the community and the subscriber.
Sam Behrend (sam@accesstucson.org) is executive director of
Access Tucson in Tucson, Arizona.
Access Tucson 2003: Services to the Community, Valued
Performance Metric
Total Units
for Year
Doltar
Value/Unit
Tot&l Community
Value
1 . Internet users served
4,254
$ 5
$ 21,270
2. Studio hours provided
4,040
250
1,010,000
3. Equipment package checkouts
448
500
224,000
4. Editing hours provided
10,471
50
523,550
5. Training certifications
1,074
250
268,500
6. Staff/volunteer producer consultation meetings
1,157
40
46,280
7. Channel scheduling appointments
215
40
8,600
8, Active Members (at time of report)
1,561
5
7,805
9. Volunteer hours
2,860
15
42,900
10, Grants awarded
16
200
3,200
11. Scholarships awarded
58
250
14,500
12. Total hours cablecast
26,280
125
3,285,000
13. Remote staff productions
38
5,000
190,000
^ mmmm ^ m 2003 Total Value to the Community: $5,645,605
^MMfMm^M 2003 City Funding from Cable Revenue: $1 ,061 ,200
Performance Metrics
There may be other Performance
Metrics that your access center
provides and that you feel placing
a value on would be possible or
justified, In Tucson, the following
items were tracked throughout the
year, but not directly "valued" in
the chart:
Individual Members (18,829)
New Members (697)
Individual visits to facility (22,382)
Training courses held (141)
People trained (946)
New projects started (320)
Organizations served (247)
Hits on website (4,261,991)
Total hours webcast (25,152)
[The number and hours of First-
run, Live, Local and Imported
programs thai comprise the
" Total hours" cablecast,]
40M
It's the Freedom to Communicate
and It's Only on Cable
by Ruth Mills
n November L7, 2003 the cable
industry announced a ground-
\. y breaking joint marketing initiative,
dedicated to promoting the unique advan
lages of cable's advanced products and
services. The "OnlyCableCan" campaign
(www.cablechannel.com) was created to
show consumers that cable offers a vast
domain of products and services — from
High Speed Internet to primetime HDTV
to On Demand program-
ming—that empower
consumers to enjoy and
access all that TV and the
Internet have to offer, on
their terms.
When 1 read this cor-
porate media release, I
was disappointed that the
cable industry yet again chose to launch a
major promotional campaign without a
single mention of one of the most unique
aspects of cable that sets it apart from its
competitors: PEG access. I was at the same
time, however, also glad to be involved in
an Alliance effort that was underway to
remedy this situation.
Over a year ago, the Alliance listserv
had numerous posts
regarding the need for
the Alliance to develop
a national image. The
posts ranged from cre-
ation of station IDs to
be used by centers, to
the development of a
network to serve the
centers. The outcome of this thread was a
meeting at the July 2003 National Confer-
ence in Tacoma, Washington. Four months
later at an Alliance board meeting in
Tampa, Florida, a workgroup was estab-
lished to develop a public service
announcement (FSA) contest.
t he goals and parameters of the con-
test were straight from the listserv discus-
sion:
• Retain local individuality, while at the
same time join arm-in-arm with PEG
access centers nationally to let the powers
know that "we're here to stay!"
• Create a tape that could be given to a
local cable operator to be placed in rota-
tion with "local avails" on CNN, Weather
Channel, etc.
•Allow time at the
end of the spot to insert
local contact info.
• Create content that
adds value to member-
ship in the Alliance.
* Satisfy members'
need for promotional
videos that acknowledge
Alliance membership.
With no knowledge that the
cable industry was to launch
a campaign with exactly the
same title the same month,
the workgroup agreed on
the slogan Only On Cable to
emphasize the
point that "only cable
can" bring you PEG
access. It is well overdue
for the cable industry to
realize what an asset PEG
access is to them. As the
networks offer less and
less local coverage, PEG
access becomes more and
Proud Member of the
Alliance lor Community Media
more important as the voice
of the people. It is time to
help the cable industry real-
ize that PEG access is a great
asset— especially in smaller
communities where there is
no other local coverage.
The contest was
launched, and the Only On
Cable contest finalists are:
* Alliance PSA, t f MWB E IjMD
submitted by Ron ,,-.,/,.. , . . ,,,
llcbert, Access Pinellas. !
•k Freedom to
Communicate, submit-
ted by Tony Mastan-
tuono, NewTV.
•k How Do You
Spell Freedom, submit-
ted by Patrick Toth, North Suburban
Access Center.
•k PSA Contest, submitted by Jason
Crow and Frank Meroney, Falmouth Com-
munity Television.
* See, submitted by Todd Holdman,
North Suburban Access Corporation.
Votes have been collect-
ed on the Alliance website
(www.alliancecm.org), and
a winner will be announced
at the end of the Tampa
2004 Alliance for Commu-
nity Media conference. The
prize will be free registra-
tion to the 2005 conference
in Monterey, California.
It is the intention of the committee to
have all the PSAs available to Alliance
members either by download free from
the website, or in other formats for a rea-
sonable fee. In addition to playing them
on their own channels, we would like each
Alliance member organization to get its
cable company to play the
spots.
I With this campaign
/*— v underway, perhaps now it's
thne to launch another
i£^~—y national campaign entitled
B "OnlyAccessCan":
OnlyAccessCan bring
you local gavel to gavel
coverage of meetings.
OnlyAccessCan bring you the voice of
the people.
OnlyAccessCan provide an opportunity
for you to call into a live program and dis-
cuss your views.
OnlyAccessCan gives you the freedom
to communicate.
OnlyAccessCan... ar\& it's only on cable!
It is going to take a concerted grass-
roots effort for these PSAs to
have an impact, but I firmly
<>> .,'!/(■ ' believe that if we work
■nr. together to promote the
benefits of Access, a differ-
ence can be made. Access
centers vary in size and
scope, but we all have one
thing in common: "It's the
Freedom to Communicate
and It's Only on Cable."
Ruth Milk (riunills@indiana.edu) is
general manager of Whitewater Community
Television, Richmond, Indiana, She serves as
secretary on the Alliance Board of Directors.
M41
CLASSIC ARTS SHOWCASE
A Channel For The Arts
"Classic MTV"
* Free Programming
* Educational
* Cultural
* 24 Hours a Day
* From Satellite G1R
* No Commercials
Charlie Mount
(323) 878-0283
casmail@earthlink.net
CLASSI'CWS^WCASE
Film and Video Clips of the Arts
BALLET - OPERA - ORCHESTRA -
CHAMBER MUSIC - ARCHITECTURE -
FILM - THEATRE - DOCUMENTARY -
FINE ART - CHORAL - ANIMATION -
and more...
* *
PO Box 828
Burbank, CA 91503
(323) 878-0283
Fax (323) 878-0329
* m
Brought to you by
The Lloyd E. Rigler -
Lawrence E. Deutsch Foun-
dation
www.classicartsshowcase.org
■jjAHidiv^ Ijip iojiimtirtly Pieilia — ■:
. ; Ffc r if fen =i».i-, 'nuk Hc*j
ALLIANCE FOR COMMU\( I V MEDIA
LEGISLATIVE ACTION CENTER
ItWflCM's now LcgJstatke Acitua C*M«fi Ftcssa foci free
b to m urw wt r*»*to iMfer Be uralo leave Wno tor *rt»ig
yurj- Moirtas of Confess in WflpsH' Edudliwal -STld GoYWPfTi ort
ACTION ALERT!
ELECTED OFFICIALS
ent-rfv! vcuir I* Oode aril ettel: "i^" Cf? I BalB
issues & legislation
133
Onftne Legislative Action Center
www.alliancecm.org
Alliance Resources
for Education
& Advocacy:
▲ Monthly volunteer Public Policy
Committee teleconferences
▲ Government relations staff person
in our Washington, DC office
▲ Pro bono public policy legal assis-
tance
▲ Online Legislative Action Center on
the Alliance website, www.alliancecm.org
A Nationwide monitoring of state
legislation
A Network of State Public Policy
Coordinators
▲ Renovated website with news and
public policy resources
▲ Legislative briefing events on Capi-
tol Hill
A One- on- one meetings with con-
gressional staff
A One-on-one meetings with FCC
commissioners and staff
A Targeted coalition building and
networking efforts
A Member and non-member elec-
tronic listservs
A Subscriptions to telecommunica-
tions trade journals
A Public policy update, monthly
e-pubiication on current events
A Community Media Review: a quar-
terly journal on community media issues
A Many Alliance publications on a
variety of topics and issues
A PEG Access
Advocate's Toolkit
by Tom Bishop
veryday, lobbyists, on behalf of
■ the' telecommunications industry,
individual corporations and policy
think tanks collect a paycheck for
being the day-in and day-out whisper
in the ear of policy makers at the
local, state and federal level.
They provide campaign funds,
"educational" seminars and "techni-
cal" information to the people who
write the laws that govern our indus-
try.
People we know as "Senator
Smith" and "Representative Jones,"
they know as "Jane" and "Bob."
How do you counter an 800-
pound gorilla who not only hogs all
the bananas, but also throws them
away without giving up a single slice?
Simple. Use the tools that have kept
community media alive and kicking
since George Stoney first used those
two words together in a sentence.
Make an appointment to speak with
your legislators or one of their key
staffers, and go in there with confi-
dence (and with a friend, if neces-
sary).
Here's a checklist that, if faithfully
followed, should make you a powerful
advocate for community media.
Know Your Cause. Don't just par-
rot the words passed on to you by
those who've studied the issue. Make
sure you're ready to answer any ques-
tion a policy maker may have on the
topic. Generally speaking, you're the
expert, this is your field, and under-
standing what any advisors may have
told you shouldn't be that difficult.
Have A Message. Community
Media is a complex animal, but you
only have so much time with Sena tor
Jane, and so you need a message that
is focused and on target. Put together
five bullet points you want to get
across, and make sure you speak to at
least three of them no matter what.
You can always cover the other two in
the (mandatory) follow-up letter or
phone call.
Know The Playeks. Who are your
allies? Who at the moment is the leg-
islator you need to convince that your
cause is just? Also, know who is work-
ing against your cause because it isn't
worth wasting your precious time
with someone who is already
entrenched.
Make Sure The Piayers Know You.
Your legislator should see you and
think "Community Media" and
remember the name of your organiza-
tion. Build up a relationship to wmere
Senator Smith and Representative
Jones become Jane and Bob. Invite
them to your facility to see the good
work you do and how they too can
make use of community media.
Use The Tools You Have. The
phone, fax, email, your channels and
your constituents are the best tools in
your toolkit. Use them as needed. You
don't want to bury a policymaker in
letters and emails everyday, but when
you need to get their attention, there's
nothing quite like a fax barrage fol-
lowed byline of phone calls and a few
terabytes of e-mail to wake them up.
Advocacy is easy. It's really just a
form of communication where you
try and convince someone of some-
thing you believe in. We're all in the
communication business. Combine
your communication skills with the
checklist above and you'll be a power-
ful advocate for Community Media.
Tom Bishop is executive director of
Media Bridges, Cincinnati, Ohio and
vice chair of the Aliiance for Commu-
nity Media. He may be reached at
tom@mediabridges. org.
Family Owned & Operated
Blank Media Supplier
800.542.4141
HD CAM DV CAM Digital Betacam CD-Rs
Duplicating Equipment CD-R Packaging
DVC Pro Betacam SP DVD-Rs
Mini DV DLTs, LTOs DVD Cases
Laser Toners Inkjet Cartridges
Authorized Distributor for
Fuji Panasonic Maxell Quantegy TDK
217.774.468
1 Bern son
fax: 2 1 7. 774. 4680 e-mail: sl»ernson@clataitiediaproduet«.«'am
Distributor of Verbatim, Hewlett-Packard, Canon, Epson, Brother and many more.
ww w.datamediapr oducts .com
The Threat
Advocacy as
by Heidi Grace
lit is community media? For
■that matter, what is media
democracy? The ability to pro-
vide easy, understandable and inspira-
tional answers to these questions is cen-
tral to our cause and our mission.
When we consider Ihese terms at face
value, they sound like admirable con-
cepts. The words community' and democ-
racy both have positive connotations that
seem, likely to evoke support from elected
leaders and government officials. But left
at face value, community media and
media democracy catmot win many bat-
tles.
If a public official doesn't know what
community media is, then how are they to
know when it has been threatened? If they
don't understand what media democracy
is, then how can they take steps to protect
it? In both cases, the reality is they can't,
and unless we do something about it, our
silence is yet another threat to communi-
ty media. That is why it is important that
we are constantly and consistently talk-
ing, explaining and defining community
media. Educating and advocating arc the
sharpest, strongest toots we have against
the "threat of silence."
At the Alliance national office, we look
for new and innovative ways to continue
spreading the good, word about commu-
nity media to members of Congress, gov-
ernment agencies and other issue organi-
zations. The goal of education and advo-
cacy is to start and sustain an ongoing
process of knowledge and understanding.
It often takes an intricate knowledge
of the process that creates and maintains
Public, Educational and Governmental
(PEG) access to know when it could be
harmed. For example, the FCC's decision
to classify cable modem service as an
information service last year was a threat
to community media because the way
cable modem is regulated can affect the
funding of community media. Someone
not in the network of knowledge and
understanding does not immediately
make that connection.
One of our recent education and
advocacy projects took place during this
of Silence:
Prevention
year's Media Democracy Week. As the
Alliance Board of Directors flew in for its
annual Washington, DC meeting, we
organized materials to storm Capitol Hill.
Early one morning, the board split up
with a handful of copies of our Commu-
nity Media Reviews and promotional
handouts about community media.
Each participating board director,
along with Bunnie and me, received a list
of congressional offices to visit. We spoke
with communications directors, press
secretaries, legislative assistants, and
other staff from the House of Representa-
tives Commerce Committee and the
entire Senate.
We shook hands, collected business
cards, gave energized presentations and
left information at the door for those
unavailable. We smiled, nodded thought-
fully and got our message out to an
impressive number of people in a brief
amount of time using limited resources.
It was an extremely successful proj-
ect. At the end of the day, at least a hun-
dred new staff persons on Capitol Hill
began to understand and know what
community is, where it comes from, how
it works, and who is behind the magic it
creates.
Education and advocacy is not limit-
ed to federal government officials inside
the Washington, DC beltway. State legis-
lators, city council members, local police
chiefs, and state public utility commis-
sioners are just a few other people who
should understand community media.
Take it a step further and look at the
members of the community closest to
you. Local business leaders, community
groups, churches and individual citizens
are just the tip of the iceberg.
The more people who become a part
of the community media network of
knowledge and understanding, the
stronger and safer community media
becomes. Silence is a threat that only
education and advocacy can preempt
and prevent.
Heidi Grace handled Government
Affairs for the Alliance until June, when she
accepted a position with a political consult-
ing firm. We wish her well.
Ey@, from page 4 7
successful digital story telling program.
Streaming video can be linked with databas-
es and documents and the Internet to mobi-
lize people to seek more information, make
donations, register for events, write their
Congressperson and "meet up" with their
friends for social action. Wireless devices
such as cell phones, laptops and PDAs can
link neighborhoods to each others in inven-
tive content collaborations. There are count-
less, affordable, easy to use digital tools that
can serve our community building efforts.
Teach your constituents how to use these
tools within the context of these questions:
What is your central message? What change
do you want to make happen? Who is your
key audience? What values do they share?
What is the best, way to communicate with
them? Once you have their attention, what
do you want them to do? How do you build
momentum? How do you know you have
been successful? What have we learned?
What's next? Ask yourself the same ques-
tions and apply these community media
strategies to the agenda of community
building and connecting to the broader
movement of media democracy.
Enjoy yourself! The threats are many,
the work is hard and sometimes it seems
like we have every finger in the leaking dike
of unrelenting challenges. Remember that
our work is about people first. We are trying
to make communities great places to live-
fun, nurturing, exciting, respectful, safe and
happy places. Find reasons to laugh, have
parties, go out for lunch and play outside.
Let words of thanks and encouragement
spill from your lips. There is more work than
any of us can possibly complete in one life-
time. If we can find the joy in working
together, we will be able to make the con-
nections, person by person, that enable us
to build local communities worth living in,
and secure media democracy around the
world.
Lauren-Glenn Davitian (davitian@
cctv.org) has been working to preserve public
access to the means of media production and
distribution since 1984. As an anthropologist,
advocate, organizer, producer and developer of
community media, she oversees CCTV's Center
for Media and Democracy, based in Burlington
Vermont (www.cctv.org). CCTV's affiliates
include Channel 1 7/Town Meeting Television,
CyberSkillslVermont and CCTV Productions.
MM5
Alliance for
Communications
Democracy
Needs You!
Join the ACD now to help us preserve
and protect the Constitutional foundation
for Community Media
For more than 15 years, the Alliance for Communications Democracy has been fighting to preserve
and strengthen access to community media. Though the odds against us have been high, and the
mega-media, corporate foes welf-heeled and powerful, time and again we've won in the courts. We
can't continue this critical work without your support. With the ramifications of the 1996 Telecommu-
nications Act still manifesting themselves, and new legislation always on the horizon, we must be
vigilant if we are to prevail and preserve democratic communications. If not us, who? If not now,
when? Please join the Alliance for Communications Democracy today!
Become an Alliance for Communications Democracy Subscriber for $350/year and receive detailed
reports on current court cases threatening access, pertinent historical case citations, and other
Alliance activities.
«■+ Voting membership open to nonprofit access operations for an annual contribution of $3,000.
«-» Assoicate, Supporter and Subscriber memberships available to organizations and individuals
at the following levels:
<-+ Alliance Associate $2500 - copies of ail briefs and reports.
<- Alliance Supporter $500 - copies of all reports and enclosures.
<-> Alliance Subscriber $350 - copies of all reports.
Direct membership inquiries to ACD Treasurer Rob Brading, Multnomah Community Television,
26000 SE Stark St., Gresham, OR 97038, telephone 503.667.7636, or email at rbrading@mctv.org
Visit the ACD's new website at
Join us at our annual meeting at the ACM conference in Tampa • Thursday, July 8, 12:15-1 :30 pm
Eye on the Prize: Securing Media Democracy
to Build Communities Worth Living In
by Lauren-Glenn Davitian
He tyranny of local franchising
■ ■ authorities. Public abivalence
\^/ about free speech. De regulation.
Concentration of global media owner-
ship. World trade agreements. These
threats are substantial but not impossible
for communtity media-tistas to over-
come. If we remember that our work is
about people first (and technology sec-
ond) we can build on the strengths of the
people we know and the communities we
live in to secure media democracy into
the future.
But where do we start? First, let's rec-
ognize our strengths:
The time is right. As a result of con-
certed, broad-based organizing by media
activists, two million letters were sent to
the FCC in response to their plans to lift
media ownership restrictions in 2003. This
unprecedented public outcry demon-
strates that the U.S. public is concerned
about the loss of local media and the dan-
gers of monopoly ownership.
We are not alone. While public access
TV workers have been at it for nearly 30
years, the combined forces of low- cost dig-
ital media and global de-regulation have
created a new generation of activists who
are working to preserve local voices and
media rights in their own communities.
The fact that 1,700 people turned out to
the National Media Reform Conference in
Madison, Wisconsin, (sponsored by Free
Press, www.freepress.org), shows that com-
munity and independent media is growing
into abroad-based movement. Global
activists, fed by the fight for cultural
preservation and against world trade,
include thousands of individuals who will
"stand tall" with us.
People trust us. From the values of
democratic media to the details of sound
editing, we gently turn knowledge into
learning and consumers into producers.
People depend on us to help them bring
their songs, stories and ideas to a wider
audience and bring them into proximity
with their neighbors. Children, teenagers,
seniors, people of different faiths, persua-
sions and ideologies trust us for what we
know and how we share it with them. This
special relationship allows us to further
educate our constituents about the perils
and promise of media and democracy —
and to prompt them to collective action.
Organizing is our Business, When
George Stoney was hired to document the
Canadian Film Board's Challenge for
Change project in the 1970s, he learned
how portable video could be used for com-
munity animation. When he and Red
Burns sent the first grassroots video mak-
ers across the country, their assignment
was to organize communities to employ
cable television for community building.
Today, hundreds of public access TV chan-
nels and community media centers exist
because someone mobilized their neigh-
bors in the cause of free speech. They
assessed community needs. They raised
awareness about the benefits of free
speech and open government. They lever-
aged community support, prepared a rea-
sonable plan, made a convincing case, lib-
erated local media, and, as a result, are
improving the quality of life for everyone
around them.
With all these advantages and forces in
our favor, what more could we ask for? So
let's go!
But wait— there is an important miss-
ing element: Mobilizatkm.We need to
engage our allies, not only those folks in
and around our own local access centers
who are doing important community
media weck-in and week-out, but also
those who are in the national (and inter-
national) struggle for media democracy.
We must seek common cause with them
and broaden our base of support in order
to overcome the sometimes daunting
forces that threaten free expression, open
government, alternative viewpoints, cul-
tural diversity and the universal human
right to communicate.
Flere are some suggestions how to
mobilize:
Educate Yourself about the threats and
opportunities posed by local, national and
global media policy, Check out the web
links listed in this issue and those listed in
sidebars to learn about media activists and
projects that work for social change and
successful efforts to stem the tide of media
consolidation.
Educate Your Supporters. Produce
workshops and programs that encourage
discussion about how these issues affect
you on a local level and tie us into a global
movement for communications rights for
all. Run the programs live. Arrange for
viewer call-ins. Stream all or part of the
events on your website and feature them
with related links [www.mediarights.org is
a great example of this) . Use the opportu-
nity to cross promote with other media
outlets. Moderate online discussions or set
up weblogs to generate momentum for
organizing efforts. Collect email addresses,
add the names to your existing database
and send e-newsletters that include infor-
mation about media equity initiatives at
the federal level, around the world and
close to home (this database will also be
extremely helpful during re-franchising or
funding cuts).
Educate Your Community. Invite
national speakers to your city or town
(Amy Goodman, feff Chester, Robert
McChesney, Noam Chomsky, Michael Par-
enti, Bill Movers, Bernie Sanders, Lori Wal-
lach, Naomi Klein, to name a few) and use
these events to educate your broader com-
munity about the threats and opportuni-
ties that we face together. Expand your
vision and reach out to social change
organizations and community media proj-
ects that you may be less familiar with
(e.g., Low Power and Pirate FM, communi-
ty technology centers (CTCs) , online
organizers, etc.). High profile events will
raise awareness about what your center is
doing to promote free speech and diverse
points of new, and establish your credibili-
ty as a media democracy advocate.
Think Strategically, Act Strategically.
In order to achieve your organizing goals —
and to teach your constituents how to
make the most of new media tools for their
own purposes — it is essential to think
about community media as a package of
strategic communications. Community
media is more than idiosyncratic video
programs airing on cable television chan-
nels. Computers and video can turn into a
See Eye, page 45
pioneering web-centric automation for access stations
□
program Library
D
cablecast"
character generator . web schedule . event controller . digital video servers
camera operator
equipment manager
volunteer coordinator
executive producer
head end technician
office manager
public relations liaison
operations manager -.
graphic artist
director
affer
CD \
hero.
Jeff Ren ner
City- of Savage, Minnesota
When the City of Savage cut the community television
budget, Jeff was the only one left standing. He was expected
to maintain the quality and quantity of programming on their
public and government channels... by himself. With CabSecast
and Carousel, Tightrope Media Systems' powerful web-
centric automation sytem, he is able to do just that.
7 do not worry about automation. It is literally the last thing
on my mind. In fact, soon after I was assigned to this post I
was able to take my two-week vacation, only returning to the
station once to add a disc to the DVD changer. "
- Jeff Renner, City of Savage Minnesota
Jeff took advantage of Cablecast's web interface along with
Carouse], its built-in character generator. Anytime he needed
to add messages to the Carousel system, he logged in from
home and updated it within seconds. Cablecast and Carousel
are the centerpieces of a two-channel head end that cost the
city less than ten thousand dollars!
If you really want to know how station managers feel about
Cablecast, jump on the ACM mailing list and ask the people
who already use it. If your station is exploring ways that it
can use its head end more effectively, you need to see
Cablecast.
4 *» *
Access your head
end from any web
browser on any
computer
connected to your
network!
Cablecast includes
Carousel, Tightrope's
powerful character
generator. They work
together so you don't
have to enter the
schedule twice!
And it all comes
in one box,
ready to install
into your head
end with help
just a toll free
phone call away
Tightrope Media Systems
800 Transfer Road, Suite 17
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55114
866.866.4118
www.trms.com
info@trms.com
TIGHTROPE'
Cablecast, Carousel, the Cablecast Logo and the Tightrope Media
Systems togo are Trademarks of Tightrope Media Systems Corporation.
Other Trademarks and Registered Trademarks are owned by their
respective companies. Copyright 2004
The simplest
purchasing decision . . .
...the most
comprehensive production tools.
Pan! Congo, Executive Director of Access Monterey Peninsula, has spent
over 25 years involved in community access television, and along the way,
he learned what it takes to succeed in this broadcast field.
"V7 [33™ is the moil practical, user- friendly video suite on the market.
I he fact that a single operator can have such power at his fingertips
continues to amaze me. From multi-camera live switched events to one
man piodut lion*, V 1 [3]i flexibility is unbeatable. I l;e piice point also
makes it wonderful for public access. With budget cycles sometimes years
apart, VT[3j's affordability makes it possible to purchase multiple systems
to use for training, remote locations, and in studio.
"But rhc real value of VT[3] is its integration and video quality.
Everythings there: switcher, editor, graphics, even high-end animation
capability. VT[3] is a system that can be used as a switcher OR an cdiror
OR a graphics station, ft combines live switching of up to 2-i sources,
real-time editing of both uncompressed and DV clips, character generation,
painting, both 2D and 3D animation, integrated Proc Amps, Waveform
and Vectorscope — even Internet streaming capabilities.
"Bottom Line: VT[3] is well-designed, stable, and supported by a
company that started the desktop video revolution over a decade ago.
There is nothing on the market rhat compares to the power and quality
of this suite of tools, and the price point is far below anything else that
even comes close."
Newtek's VT[33 offers everything a Public, Education
and Government Local Access television station needs:
• live switching of 8 component or up to 24 composite sources •
• hardware switcher Interface • uncompressed output •
• live Internet streaming • character generation •
• real-time uncompressed editing • painting • 2D animation •
• free technical support • 3D modeling, animation and rendering •
All integrated into one high-end production suite, for stations
demanding affordability and reliability.
To request your free PEG information package, visit
www.newtek.com/cmr
To get a live demo, contact your Authorized Reseller at:
www.newtek.com/demo
or call 1-800-843-8934.
© 2003, NewTek. VT(3| is a trademark of NewTek.
Paul Congo.
Executive Director
Access Monterey Peninsula
E n ii i iiii lH ylHrih
The Annenberg/CPB Channel
It's free, and available 24/7
to round out your schedule.
Find new programming in reading,
literature, social studies, and the arts.
Contact Dana Rouse at
1-800-228-8030 ext. 4
or channel@learner.org.
www.learner.org
Annenberg/CPB
COMMUNITY MEDIA REVIEW
Grand Rapids Cable Access Center, Inc.
711 Bridge St. NW
Grand Rapids, Ml 49504-5560
Printed on
Recycled Paper
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Grand Rapids, IV
Permit 918
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11